Conflict of Laws - Doctrines

CASE DOCTRINES

xoxo, Cla & Trish <3

Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

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

Under circumstances obligation in the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers to the terms of the conditions printed at the back of the passage tickets. o There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country's several islands, and with that, the

facilities they offer leave much to be desired, thus, passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be availed of, even through circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this was precisely the experience of Tandog and Tiro.

o Under these circumstances, it is hardly just and proper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for conditions that may be printed much charge them with having consented to the conditions, so printed, especially if there are a number of such conditions in fine print, as in this case.

o Bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the lowincome groups and are less literate, and who have little or no choice but to avail of petitioner's vessels.

Although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another by agreement of the parties in writing, based on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules of Court, such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates the action of the claimants. o Considering the expense and trouble a passenger residing outside of Cebu City would incur to prosecute a claim in

the City of Cebu, he would most probably decide not to file the action at all. The condition will defeat the ends of justice. (Sweet Lines v. Teves)

In, HSBC v. Sherman: While it is true that “the transaction took place in Singaporean setting” and that the Joint and Several Guarantee contains a choice-of-forum clause, the very essence of due process dictates that the stipulation that “[t]his guarantee and all rights, obligations and liabilities arising hereunder shall be construed and determined under and may be enforced in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Singapore. We hereby agree that the Courts in Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising under this guarantee” be liberally construed. One basic principle underlies all rules of jurisdiction in International Law: a State does not have jurisdiction in the absence of some reasonable basis for exercising it, whether the proceedings are in rem, quasi in rem, or in personam. To be reasonable, the jurisdiction must be based on some minimum contacts that will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Indeed, as pointed-out by petitioner BANK at the outset, the instant case presents a very odd situation. In the ordinary habits of life, anyone would be disinclined to litigate before a foreign tribunal, with more reason as a defendant. However, in this case, private respondents are Philippine residents (a fact which was not disputed by them) who would rather face a complaint against them before a foreign court and in the process incur considerable expenses, not to mention inconvenience, than to have a Philippine court try and resolve the case. Private respondents' stance is hardly comprehensible, unless their ultimate intent is to evade, or at least delay, the payment of a just obligation.

CHOICE OF LAW Re: a foreigner's illegitimate children's successional rights (Bellis v. Bellis) Court ruled that provision in a foreigner’s will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in view of those matters that Article 10 — now Article 16 — of the Civil Code states said national law should govern. Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his will should be governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then his will, which deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes, is valid. The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to the legitimes under the texas law, which is the national law of the deceased.

CASE DOCTRINES



Domiciliary administrator refused to part with the stock certificates (from a domestic corporation) of the deceased. Ancilliary administrator in the Philippines had the stocks of certificate declared as lost. (Tayag v. Benguet) Tayag, as ancillary administrator, has the power to gain control and possession of all assets of the decedent within the jurisdiction of the Philippines It is to be noted that the scope of the power of the ancillary administrator was, in an earlier case, set forth by Justice Malcolm. Thus: "It is often necessary to have more than one administration of an estate. When a person dies intestate owning property in the country of his domicile as well as in a foreign country, administration is had in both countries. That which is granted in the jurisdiction of decedent's last domicile is termed the principal administration, while any other administration is termed the ancillary administration. The reason for the latter is because a grant of administration does not ex proprio vigore have any effect beyond the limits of the country in which it is granted. Hence, an administrator appointed in a foreign state has no authority in the [Philippines]. The ancillary administration is proper, whenever a person dies, leaving in a country other than that of his last domicile, property to be administered in the nature of assets of the deceased liable for his individual debts or to be distributed among his heirs." Probate court has authority to issue the order enforcing the ancillary administrator’s right to the stock certificates when the actual situs of the shares of stocks is in the Philippines. It would follow then that the authority of the probate court to require that ancillary administrator's right to "the stock certificates covering the 33,002 shares ... standing in her name in the books of [appellant] Benguet Consolidated, Inc...." be respected is equally beyond question. For appellant is a Philippine corporation owing full allegiance and subject to the unrestricted jurisdiction of local courts. Its shares of stock cannot therefore be considered in any wise as immune from lawful court orders. Re: an illegal dismissal case wherein the ER is from Pakistan and the EEs are Filipinas. (Pakistan Intl Airport v. Ople) W/N Pakistani law is the governing law. Public Policy. This contractual provision cannot be invoked to prevent the application of Philippine labor laws and regulations to the subject matter of this case. EE-ER relationship is much affected with public interest and that the otherwise applicable Philippine laws and regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties by agreeing upon some other law to govern their relationship. Substantive Contacts/Most significant relationship. Karachi courts cannot be the sole venue for the settlement of disputes. Contract executed and performed in the Philippines, Petitioner is a corp. doing business in the Phils and private respondents are citizens PIA did not prove Pakistani law, thus it is presumed to be the same as Philippine law. W/N there was bad faith on the part of TWA, considering that TWA contends that overbooking of flights is a common and accepted practice in the US. (Zalamea v. CA) The US law or regulation allegedly authorizing overbooking has never been proved. Foreign laws do not prove themselves nor can the courts take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved. Written law may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied with a certificate that such officer has custody. The certificate may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. Even if the claimed U.S. Code of Federal Regulations exist, the same isn’t applicable in accordance with the principle of lex loci contractus which require that the law of the place where the airline ticket was issued should be applied by the court where the passengers are residents and nationals of the forum and the ticket is issued in such State by the defendant airline. Since the tickets were sold and issued in the Philippines, the applicable law would be Philippine law. Under Bahrain law, where some of the complainants were deployed, the prescriptive period for claims arising out of a contract of employment is one year. Whether it is the Bahrain law on prescription of action based on the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 or a Philippine law on prescription that shall be the governing law. (Cadalin v. POEA Administrator) As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such as service of process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed by the laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive law.

CASE DOCTRINES



A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law. Exception: However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant when the country of the forum has a "borrowing statute." A "borrowing statute" directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law. While there are several kinds of "borrowing statutes," one form provides that an action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued, will not be enforced in the forum even though the local statute has not run against it. Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said Section provides: If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippines Islands. Exception to the exception: The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's public policy. To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question would contravene the public policy on the protection to labor. Re: a case of damages against United Airlines filed in the Philippines. This was the case about a family who was rudely attended to by one of the staff of United Airlines. The court held that the CA erred in applying the laws of the US as Philippine law is the applicable law. Although, the contract of carriage was to be performed in the US, the tickets were purchased through United's agent in Manila. It is true that the tickets were "rewritten" in Washington, D.C. however, such fact did not change the nature of the original contract of carriage entered into by the parties in Manila. According to the doctrine of lex loci contractus, as a general rule, the law of the place where a contract is made or entered into governs with respect to its nature and validity, obligation and interpretation. This has been said to be the rule even though the place where the contract was made is different from the place where it is to be performed, and particularly so, if the place of the making and the place of performance are the same. Whether the foreign judgment should be given recognition and enforcement in the Philippines. (Asiavest v. CA) In this jurisdiction, a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction; that the trial upon regular proceedings has been conducted, following due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice; and that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and in the system of laws under which it is sitting or fraud in procuring the judgment. A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum. As to what the Malaysian procedural law is, remains a question of fact, not of law. It may not be taken judicial notice of and must be pleaded and proved like any other fact. Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court provide that it may be evidenced by an official publication or by a duly attested or authenticated copy thereof. Fraud to hinder the enforcement within the jurisdiction of a foreign judgment must be extrinsic, i.e., fraud based on facts not controverted or resolved in the case where judgment is rendered, or that which would go to the jurisdiction of the court or would deprive the party against whom judgment is rendered a chance to defend the action to which he has a meritorious defense. Intrinsic fraud is one which goes to the very existence of the cause of action is deemed already adjudged, and it, therefore, cannot militate against the recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment. Evidence is wanting on the alleged extrinsic fraud. Hence, such unsubstantiated allegation cannot give rise to liability therein. Lastly, there is no merit to the argument that the foreign judgment is not enforceable in view of the absence of any statement of facts and law upon which the award in favor of the petitioner was based. As aforestated, the lex fori or the internal law of the forum governs matters of remedy and procedure. Considering that under the procedural rules of the High Court of Malaya, a valid judgment may be rendered even without stating in the judgment every fact and law upon which the judgment is based, then the same must be accorded respect and the courts in this jurisdiction cannot invalidate the judgment of the foreign court simply because our rules provide otherwise. Whether or not a divorce decree can be admitted in evidence. (Garcia v. Recio)

CASE DOCTRINES



A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. However, the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven. Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment; hence, like any other facts, both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence. Raytheon mainly asserts that the written contract between Rouzie and BMSI included a valid choice of law clause, that is, that the contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut. It also mentions the presence of foreign elements in the dispute – namely, the parties and witnesses involved are American corporations and citizens and the evidence to be presented is located outside the Philippines – that renders our local courts inconvenient forums. Raytheon theorizes that the foreign elements of the dispute necessitate the immediate application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. (Raytheon v. Rouzie) Recently in Hasegawa v. Kitamura, the Court outlined 3 consecutive phases involved in judicial resolution of conflicts-of-laws problems, namely: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Thus, in the instances where the Court held that the local judicial machinery was adequate to resolve controversies with a foreign element, the following requisites had to be proved: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have the power to enforce its decision. On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws problem where the case is filed in a Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties and the res, it may or can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict-of-laws or the convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. This is an exercise of sovereign prerogative of the country where the case is filed. That the subject contract included a stipulation that the same shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut does not suggest that the Philippine courts, or any other foreign tribunal for that matter, are precluded from hearing the civil action. Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties. The choice of law stipulation will become relevant only when the substantive issues of the instant case develop, that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds before the trial court. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in conflicts-of-laws cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. Raytheon’s averments of the foreign elements in the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial court of its jurisdiction over the Civil Case and the parties involved. MINIMUM CONTACT One basic principle underlies all rules of jurisdiction in International Law: a State does not have jurisdiction in the absence of some reasonable basis for exercising it, whether the proceedings are in rem quasi in rem or in personam. To be reasonable, the jurisdiction must be based on some minimum contacts that will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (HSBC v. Sherman) As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek to answer two important questions: (1) What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and (2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation. Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is known as “characterization,” or the “doctrine of qualification.” It is the “process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule.” The purpose of “characterization” is to enable the forum to select the proper law. Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the possible test for the determination of the applicable law. These “test factors” or “points of contact” or “connecting factors” could be any of the following: “(1) the nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin; (2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation; (3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved; (4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts; (5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised; (6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis; (7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex fori—the law of the

CASE DOCTRINES



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

CASE DOCTRINES



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

CASE DOCTRINES



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

CASE DOCTRINES



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

CASE DOCTRINES



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

CASE DOCTRINES



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

CASE DOCTRINES



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

CASE DOCTRINES



necessarily must arise. No final judgment in the collection suit is required for the rule on waiver to apply. BANTSA alleged that under English Law, the mortgagee doesn’t lose its security interest by simply filing civil actions for sums of money. This is untenable. Philippine law should apply. There is no judicial notice of any foreign law. Any foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. When the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied. Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. The public policy sought to be protected is the principle embedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting up of a single cause of action. Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws.

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

CASE DOCTRINES



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

CASE DOCTRINES



The hasty application of Philippine law and the complete disregard of the will, already probated as duly executed in accordance with the formalities of Philippine law, is fatal, especially in light of the factual and legal circumstances here obtaining. Owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law. Once proven that the person who initiated the divorce was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce from his spouse, the spouse will lose her right to inherit from him. Divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons. Saudia Arabian Airlines vs CA Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily establish the existence of a foreign element, we agree with petitioner that the problem herein could present a “conflicts” case. A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or more states is said to contain a “foreign element.” The presence of a foreign element is inevitable since social and economic affairs of individuals and associations are rarely confined to the geographic limits of their birth or conception. The forms in which this foreign element may appear are many. The foreign element may simply consist in the fact that one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a contract between nationals of one State involves properties situated in another State. In other cases, the foreign element may assume a complex form. In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. Also, by virtue of the employment of Morada with the petitioner SAUDIA as a flight stewardess, events did transpire during her many occasions of travel across national borders, particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a “conflicts” situation to arise. We thus find private respondent’s assertion that the case is purely domestic, imprecise. A conflicts problem presents itself here, and the question of jurisdiction confronts the court a quo. As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek to answer two important questions: (1) What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and (2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation. Although ideally, all choice-of-law theories should intrinsically advance both notions of justice and predictability, they do not always do so. The forum is then faced with the problem of deciding which of these two important values should be stressed. Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is known as “characterization,” or the “doctrine of qualification.” It is the “process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule.” The purpose of “characterization” is to enable the forum to select the proper law. Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual situation, event, or operative fact. An essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a “test” or “connecting factor” or “point of contact.” Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as property right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration, the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing. TESTS ON POINTS OF CONTACT (1) the nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin; (2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation; (3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved; (4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts; (5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised; (6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis;

CASE DOCTRINES



(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex fori—the law of the forum—is particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, matters of ‘procedure’ not going to the substance of the claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and (8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment. Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving torts, the “connecting factor” or “point of contact” could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred. And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place). This is because it is in the Philippines where petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina residing and working here. According to her, she had honestly believed that petitioner would, in the exercise of its rights and in the performance of its duties, “act with justice, give her her due and observe honesty and good faith.” Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she claimed. That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly occurred in another country is of no moment. For in our view what is important here is the place where the over-all harm or the totality of the alleged injury to the person, reputation, social standing and human rights of complainant, had lodged, according to the plaintiff below (herein private respondent). All told, it is not without basis to identify the Philippines as the situs of the alleged tort. “State of the most significant relationship” rule should be appropriate to apply now, given the factual context of this case. In applying said principle to determine the State which has the most significant relationship, the following contacts are to be taken into account and evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue: (a) the place where the injury occurred; (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties; and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. Prescinding from this premise that the Philippines is the situs of the tort complained of and the place “having the most interest in the problem,” the Philippine law on tort liability should have paramount application to and control in the resolution of the legal issues arising out of this case. The action was based on Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code, not the Saudi Arabian laws. There was no need to pleas and allege Saudi Arabian laws. PCIB vs Escolin Texas law applies, but because of estoppel and it is yet to be proven. No proof yet of what Texas law is, but PCIB allegedly averred that under the laws of Texas, there is such legitime of 1/4 of the said conjugal estate o PCIB would be estopped to claim that the estate of Mrs. Hodges should be less than as contended by it (which is initially at least ½ of the estate), for admissions by a party related to the effects of foreign laws, which have to be proven in our courts like any other controverted fact, create estoppel. Elementary is the rule that foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proven like any other fact in dispute between the parties in any proceeding, with the rare exceptional n instances when the said laws are already within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when they are well and generally known, or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties concerned claim otherwise.

VII. PROPERTY Laurel vs Garcia Conflict issues: We see no reason why a conflict of law rule should apply when no conflict of law situation exists. A conflict of law situation arises only when: (1) There is a dispute over the title or ownership of an immovable, such that the capacity to take and transfer immovables, the formalities of conveyance, the essential validity and effect of the transfer, or the interpretation and effect of a conveyance, are to be determined; and (2) A foreign law on land ownership and its conveyance is asserted to conflict with a domestic law on the same matters. Hence, the need to determine which law should apply. In the instant case, none of the above elements exists. The issues are not concerned with the validity of ownership or title. There is no question that the property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the authority of the respondent officials to validly

CASE DOCTRINES



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

Documents

Conflict of Laws - Doctrines