Conflicts of Law Exam

Conflicts of Law – First Exam
From the lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez
NOVEMBER 13, 2013
So it is not something you are unfamiliar with. Other than that, cases most of them you have already
encountered. Civil Procedure, Persons, and other Civil Law subjects. I have high expectation from you.
Normally nobody fails in this class. Maybe two years ago, one or two.
What is conflict of laws all about? When you talk about conflict of laws this is not the same as public
international law where we discuss different foreign laws or foreign treaties. But when we talk about this
subject, there is always a foreign element. When we talk about foreign element, it could be a foreign law.
But we will not go into the substance of the foreign law. Or a foreigner, one of the parties is a foreigner.
The contract is entered in a foreign country. Particular event which is the subject of the case happened in
a foreign country. That is why we are going to discuss the basic topics:
1. Jurisdiction;
2. Choice of law;
3. What are we going to do with the foreign judgment if the foreign judgment is brought in the
Philippines.
NATURE, DEFINITION AND SCOPE
The definition of conflict of laws or private international law is that part of the municipal law of the state
which directs its courts and administrative agencies when confronted with a legal problem involving a
foreign element whether or not they should apply a foreign law. This definition is more related to choice
of law. What law will apply? This case has a foreign element, what law will apply? Will it be the foreign
law or our law?
So the elements of the definition.
1. Conflict of laws is a part of the municipal law of the state. Meaning what will govern the situation when
there is a foreign element? Our laws. We do not look other laws.
2. Here, it directs the courts and administrative agencies. You remember Article 1753 that we discussed
yesterday? The law of the country of destination will govern the loss, destruction or deterioration of the
goods. So it is directed to the courts, telling the courts what law to apply. Let us say we have a flight
from Manila to Russia. Goods are sent to Russia. Goods are lost. Then a case is filed in the Philippines.
Can our courts automatically use our laws on transportation? Under art 1753, the law of destination.
Our courts have to look the Russian law on transportation. So it is telling the courts what law to use.
3. A legal problem involving a foreign element. If there is no foreign element, then there is no conflict of
law to speak of.
4. Application or non-application of a foreign law. Perhaps our municipal law will tell us that our domestic
law will apply or the foreign law will apply.
So this is what we talked about in the beginning, the scope and function of the subject, the determination
of which country has jurisdiction. The determination in the applicable case of either the local or the
foreign law and the determination of the force, validity and effectiveness of the foreign judgment. These
are the main topics.
Let us distinguish. Private international law from public international law.
Private International Law Public International Law
Municipal in Character International in character
Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 1 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Lauban, Layog, Leguin, Kahulugan
Involves Private Individuals or Persons, Involves Sovereign States and other Entities
Natural or Juridical possessed with international personality
So when we talk about the issue in China, the refusal to apologize. Is that an issue involving public or
private international law? Those comfort women. There is a case before the SC involving comfort women
asking for remuneration for the suffering they experienced during the Japanese occupation. Japan refused
to acknowledge. Is that private or public? Both mentioned are under public international law.
Private International Law Public International Law
Between Persons Of interest only to states
When you want to file an action, go to the You do not go to the courts.
courts.
SOURCES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS:
1. Civil Code;
2. Code of Commerce;
3. Special laws- Foreign Investment Act, Corporation Code, General Banking Act, Intellectual Property
Code. COGSA is a US Law. Warsaw Convention is a treaty.
4. Multinational treaties and international conventions such as Warsaw Convention and Geneva
Convention, bilateral treaties;
5. Law of Nations- lex rei sitae or lex situs, or formalities of contracts as where the contract is executed;
6. Jurisprudence- local or foreign;
7. Constitution.
So jurisdiction in international law is the right of the state to exercise authority over persons within its
boundaries. So we are not talking about jurisdiction of the RTC, MTC. But jurisdiction of the state. Where
do you file? What state has jurisdiction? Remember Warsaw Convention under article 28? In any action
involving international transportation, there are 4 places where we can file the action- the place of the
domicile of the carrier, the place where the contract was entered into, the principal place of business, the
place of destination.
So we are talking about the state. Not the court which has jurisdiction.
So the state does not assume jurisdiction over ambassadors, diplomats, or other states under public
international law.
So we have to distinguish between judicial jurisdiction which is the authority of the state to take hold of
any judicial matters it seems fit by making its courts and agencies assume jurisdiction over cases before
them. Legislative jurisdiction which is the power of the state to exercise control through rules on law,
interest of person, thing, event or situation.
So insofar as we are concerned in conflict of laws we look at three types of jurisdiction. Let us go to an
example John, an American, married Maria, a Filipina. After 3 months, she discovered that John is
homosexual, left the Philippines after such discovery. Maria filed an action for annulment and damages
with the RTC here in the Philippines. Since John was already out of the country, summon by publication
was made. You know that under Rule 15 section 15 under extraterritorial service of summons.

Now 1st question, is summon by publication allowed? Yes because it is action in rem and further involves
the personal status of the plaintiff. That is jurisdiction over the person. When is jurisdiction acquired?
Upon proper service of summons. So if it is summon by publication, jurisdiction is acquired over the
person of the foreign defendant.
Does the RTC have the jurisdiction to annul the marriage? Yes. Because it has jurisdiction over the res,
the annulment itself.
Does the RTC have jurisdiction to award damages? No. even if the marriage has been annulled because
an award for damages is a judgment in personam.
What if John has property in the Philippines, can the court satisfy John’s liability for damages of such
property? No. John never incurred personal liability therefore his properties cannot be held liable unless
the court has previously acquired jurisdiction over such property by attachment or any other proceeding in
rem.
Now with respect to the subject matter, does the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
filed by Maria against John? Yes. This is an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage or annulment.
RTC has jurisdiction over annulment. RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Jurisdiction over the person is proper service of summons. Jurisdiction over the res by proper attachment
of property here in the Philippines.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the authority of the court to hear and determine cases of a general
class to which the proceedings in question belong. It is conferred by law. It is the law itself which tells us
what are the subject matter to which the particular court has jurisdiction. Cannot conferred by consent of
the parties or voluntary submission. So in relation to that we have the case of Saudi Arabian Airlines. In
this case, this woman Milagros Morada worked as a flight attendant for Saudia. In April 1990, during lay-
over in Jakarta, Milagros went to disco with Thamer and Allah. When they were in the hotel, they agreed
to have breakfast in the room of Thamer. Allah left on some pretext. Shortly after, Thamer attempted to
rape Milagros. Fortunately a roomboy and some security personnel heard her cries for help and rescued
her. The Indonesian police arrested Thamer and Allah. Morada learned that through the intercession of
Saudia Arabian government, the Indonesian government agreed to deport Thamer and Allah after 2
weeks of detention in Jakarta. Eventually they were put in service by Saudia. As if nothing happened.
They were not punished at all by the airline. 5 months later, in September, in 1990, Morada was
transferred unilaterally by airline to Manila. She has to work as a ground staff in Manila. So she worked as
a ground staff in Manila and thought that the Jakarta incident was behind her. Suddenly, she was ordered
to see the chief legal officer of Saudia in Jeddah. When she was there, she was brought to the police
station where the police took her passport and questioned her about the Jakarta incident which happened
to her two years ago. Chief Legal Officer of Saudia simply stood beside her when the police put pressure
on her to drop the case against Thamer and Allah. Not until she agreed to do so that the police returned
her passport and allowed her to catch the afternoon flight out of Jeddah. 1 year and a half light, Saudia
summoned her to report to Jeddah again for further investigation. In Jeddah, a Saudian judge
interrogated her about the Jakarta incident. After 1 hour of interrogation they let her go. So she was
already in the airport to return to Manila. But just her plane was about to take off, Saudia officer told her
that airline forbade her to take the flight. They took her passport and told her to remain in Jeddah. After a
few days, she was escorted to the same court where the judge to her astonishment and shock rendered a
decision sentencing her to 5 months imprisonment and 286 lashes. Only then did she realize that the
Saudi court tried her as to what happened in Jakarta. She was found guilty of adultery, going to disco,
dancing and listening to music, socializing with male crew in contravention of Islamic traditions. Facing
conviction, she sought help of Saudia. But she was denied assistance. The Prince of Makkah helped her
and she was allowed to return. When she returned to Manila, she was terminated by Saudia without her
being informed of the cause. She filed a case before the RTC for damages based on Article 21 of the Civil
Code. Saudia filed a motion to dismiss that the RTC has no jurisdiction because the case involves a
conflict problem. There is a foreign element.
The issue is whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Definitely. Article 19 and 21
are actionable with enforceable remedies. Based on the allegations in the complaint, RTC possesses
jurisdiction over the subject matter. You can sue here based on Article 19 and 21. Pragmatic
considerations include the convenience of the parties also weighed heavily in favor of the RTC assuming
jurisdiction.

Does the RTC acquire jurisdiction over the parties? Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff
Milagros Morada? Yes. How? Upon filing of the complaint. Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over Saudia?
Yes. It filed a motion to dismiss and an answer. Andiyan na iyong answer with affirmative defenses. It
was also properly served with summons, etc.
We will go back to this case when we reach choice of law.
Jurisdiction over the person is the competence of the court to render a decision that will bind the parties
to a suit. If a court has no jurisdiction over the person then he is not bound by the judgment. Just like the
example we look at earlier. John was already in the US. Is the RTC competent to annul the marriage
between John and Maria? Definitely. Is the RTC competent to award damages? No. How can the court
force John to pay damages eh wala naman si John dito. The best way is to convert the case into one that
is quasi in rem. So if John has properties in the Philippines, that can be attached to answer for the
damages sought by Maria.
In relation to conflict of laws, a state has the power to exercise judicial jurisdiction over an individual on
one or more of the following bases:
1. Proper service of summons if he is here. If the foreign defendant is here. That is presence;
2. Domicile. If he is domiciled here. If he is a resident;
3. If he is a national of this country or a citizen. It could be that the plaintiff is a foreigner and the
defendant is a national;
4. Consent. If the person allows the state to acquire jurisdiction. This is not jurisdiction over the subject
matter. This is jurisdiction over the person. The consent of the person is significant.
5. Appearance in the action;
6. Doing business in the state;
7. Act done in the state;
8. Causing an effect to the state by an act done elsewhere;
9. Ownership, possession or use of the thing in the state;
10. Other relationships to the state which made the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable.
Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired the moment he institutes the proceeding.
Jurisdiction over the defendant is voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Going back to Rule 14, unless he makes clear that the purpose in the appearance is to question the
court’s jurisdiction over his person. Under rule 14 section 20. But if he files a motion or an answer
without questioning the jurisdiction of the court over his person, then that is tantamount to voluntary
submission. Simple manifestation and appearance in person by an attorney is also tantamount to
submission.
Proper service of summons. Take note of the word “proper.” If the service of summons is improper, and
not in compliance with Rule 14 then there is no acquisition of jurisdiction over the person.
3 ways of service of summons:
1. Personal- Rule 14 section 6

2. Substituted- section 7
3. Extraterritorial service on a non-resident defendant and not found in the Philippines- Rule 14 section 15
4. Service of summons on foreign corporation- Rule 14 section 12
5. Rule 14 section 14 and 16
So let’s go to this issue. Can a non-resident defendant not found in the Philippines be sued? Well the
general rule, no because the local courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over him.
Exceptions. Courts can acquire jurisdiction over his person if:

Exceptions
1. Under section 15 of rule 14 if the action affects his personal status. Personal status of the plaintiff.
Adoption, recognition as an illegitimate child, annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage.
2. Affects his properties in the Philippines. The properties of the defendant.
3. Action is quasi in rem.
So we will no longer look at the distinction between in rem and quasi in rem.

There are other cases I assigned under acquisition of jurisdiction. These are cases under jurisdiction
involving a foreign element. Rule 14 section 15, section 12, section 16 in relation to section 6 and 7.
WHAT THE COURT OF THE FORUM MUST DO
Meaning if an action is filed before our courts, the forum is here. Our country, the forum. What must the
court do if a conflict case is brought before it? Meaning a case with a foreign element is filed before our
courts.
The court has 2 actions:
1. Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Somebody filed an action for divorce. Do our courts have
jurisdiction over divorce cases? Absolutely not. Dismiss. When we talk about jurisdiction we talk about
jurisdiction over subject matter.
Even if our courts have jurisdiction, they can refuse to assume jurisdiction. The courts can say “no, we
will not try the case.” This is again to dismiss the case because it refuses to assume jurisdiction.
2. Assume jurisdiction. Once the court realizes that it has jurisdiction, it can assume jurisdiction and apply
the law of the forum, our laws, or apply the law of some other state. It is only when the court assumes
jurisdiction that it will determine what law to apply. What is the applicable law, our law or the law of
another state?
This is the general procedure that the court or administrative body must take when the case with a
foreign element is brought before it.
If the court possesses jurisdiction, it may refuse to assume jurisdiction or assume jurisdiction. It may
either apply the internal law (law of the forum or lex fori) or the proper foreign law (lex causae). Ano iyan
bentot2? No it is not that simple. We will have to go through the rules.
Let us go back to John and Maria. In 1995, John married Maria in Tokyo. They established their home in
San Francisco. They have 2 children. In 2003, John abandoned Maria and obtained a divorce in Reno
Nevada. 2004, Maria returned to the Philippines with 2 children. 2005, John goes to Philippines and
engages in business in the country. Andito siya. 2005, Maria sued John for support before the RTC. John
invoked the Nevada divorce.
May foreign element. Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the case for support? Yes. Should it assume
jurisdiction or not? If it assumes jurisdiction, what law should it apply in determining:
1. Validity of the marriage of John and Maria in Tokyo. Philippine law, Japanese law or California law?
2. Validity of the divorce. Philippine law, California law, Nevada law? Philippine law is the nationality of
Maria. California law is the domicile. Nevada law is where the divorce filed.
These are the issues. When the court assumes jurisdiction, what law, what are the issues? Is Maria
entitled to support? Whether the marriage is valid in Tokyo? Are they really divorced or not? Where are
they divorced? Nevada. So those are the questions that the court will have to ask.
We have a situation where the court has jurisdiction. In our example, the RTC has jurisdiction over the
support case, over the subject matter. Can the court acquire jurisdiction over John? Yes. He is here in the
Philippines doing business so there will be proper service of summons. Now this refusal to assume
jurisdiction is an exercise of sovereign right. The reason for refusal to assume jurisdiction is that to do so
would prove inconvenient for the forum. In other words, forum non conveniens.
Can the court unilaterally and arbitrarily refuse to assume jurisdiction? No. There must be a reason. This is
the acceptable reason: an inconvenient forum.
What are the factors that would make the forum inconvenient?
1. Main aspects of the case transpired in the foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their
residents there;
2. The relief that the non-resident plaintiffs sought the forum merely to secure procedural advantages or
to harass the defendant;
3. The unwillingness to extend judicial facilities to non-resident aliens (di na masabtan si maam)

If the case involves two foreigners. The contract is entered in a foreign country and the witnesses are all
in the foreign country. The court may say “why are you filing the case here?”
4. Inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to be obtained;
5. Forum has no particular interest in the case;
6. The case may be better tried in other court;
7. The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.
The court can assume jurisdiction but the applicable law is the foreign law. Ang hirap naman hanapin ng
law na iyan. You know very well under Rule 132 section section 24 and 25 that a foreign law must be
pleaded and proven. Under section 25, you must get the foreign law from the officer having the custody
of the official document. Kung mahirap masiyado, these are the factors that make the forum inconvenient.
So what are the factors that have to be taken into account in considering the most convenient forum for a
conflict problem?
1. Whether or not the forum is one which the parties may conveniently resort. In the case of John and
Maria, is it convenient for them to file the case here? Yes because they are both here. Alangan naman
ifile nila sa Tokyo, Nevada ang support.
2. Whether or not the forum is in the position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the fact.
Well this is an action for support. Definitely our courts can make an intelligent decision. It likely has the
power to make an intelligent decision. In our example it is clearly stated that John is doing business
here. The court can enforce its decision because he is doing business here.
PRINCIPLE OF EFFECTIVENESS
This is one of the reasons why the forum is inconvenient. The judge has no right to render judgment if it
cannot enforce its decision within its territory. Meaning what if it is convenient? The parties are here. The
court can make an intelligent decision but if it cannot enforce here at all, what is the point in acquiring
jurisdiction, trying the case and pronouncing judgment. The best case here is RP vs. Marcos.
This is the background of RP vs. Marcos. The former shah of Iran and his wife misappropriated funds and
embezzled and converted billions of dollars belonging to the national treasury of Iran. Iranian government
filed a case before the US court and asked that a constructive trust be imposed on the assets of the Shah
throughout the world. US court dismissed the case on the ground of forum non conveniens because the
litigation has no relation to the state of New York other than the presence of the Shah and his wife in the
States. Constructive trust sought by the Iranian Government involves the assets of the Shah in Europe, in
the Middle East. Property in the States, let us say, they have one condo there. That’s all. Iyong iba
andoon na all over the world. Sabi ng US Court forum non conveniens. We will not assume jurisdiction.
You file the case somewhere else. If you want the court to impose a constructive trust, file it where the
properties are. Even if they render a judgment placing a constructive trust, what if the other states will
not agree. This is the basis of RP vs. Marcos.
Here the US SC of New York granted the petition for preliminary injunction filed by the Philippine
government prohibiting the sale of 5 New York properties of the Marcoses. Marcos alleged that the District
Court of New York should have dismissed the case on the ground of forum non conveniens or should have
refused to assume jurisdiction citing the case of Islamic vs. Palawi. Bakit doon sa Islamic the New York
court refused to assume jurisdiction? How come here the New York court granted the petition of the
Philippine government for injunction. Was the New York court correct in not dismissing the case on the
ground of forum non conveniens? Yes. This case involves the ownership of specific properties in New
York and only such properties. The Philippines seeks to impose a constructive trust only on assets in New
York. New York is not an inconvenient forum. New York court has the power to enforce the trust on those
properties that are in New York. There is also no showing that an alternative forum is available. Meaning
saan pala ifile ng Philippine government iyong petition to impose a constructive trust? Sa Europe? Sa Iran?
No sa New York.
SC said the complaint only seeks the US recognition of a Philippine decree and that the district court
would not be asked to try the basic issues accusing Marcos of unlawful taking. Whether or not the
properties are ill-gotten wealth. That is not the issue brought before the New York court. With respect to
constructive trust, not inconvenient for the New York court.
This is just the overview of jurisdiction.

November 19, 2013
Let’s see if you actually read your textbook.
Why is there such a subject as international law? According to your author because this world is
composed of many states governed by different sets of laws and rules. The most blatant is the topic of
divorce. Foreigners from countries that allow divorce marry Filipinas. Therefore it says here, states cannot
help but interrelate with one another. That’s why we need this subject.
To decide what country has jurisdiction to decide the case. Can jurisdiction be acquired over this particular
foreign defendant.
Why is it important? The technological advances in the field of communication and transportation, the
frequency of transactions that cut across national and territorial boundaries, the diversity of laws
prevailing the world.
Examples of issues. State to state
States in the US have different grounds in granting divorce. Nevada is one of the easiest places to obtain
divorce. Ohio is quite conservative in the grounds. If a divorce is granted for some flimsy reason in
Nevada it might not apply in Ohio.
Contracts signed in Arkansas may be considered void in the rule of New York. This is only within the US.
What more if we go to states under the definition of political law
Do we follow the same definition in private international law as political law? (4 elements) What is a state
in relation to conflict of laws? Example, I do not know if this is still true but when I was taking up political
law Taiwan was not considered a state. Can Taiwan be considered a state under private international law?
As regards this subject, when we talk about a state there’s no need to go through the laborious process of
defining the elements of statehood. So eventhough Taiwan is not considered a state in political law,
Taiwan can be considered a state (in conflicts law).
What law will apply the law of Taiwan or the law of the Philippines? It’s not about that. There will be no
argument that we cannot apply the law of Taiwan because it is not a state. If the laws of Taiwan are
applicable then you apply the laws of Taiwan. That argument does not exist in private international law. If
the law of Taiwan is applicable then you apply the law of Taiwan whether or not it is considered a state
under political law. Those that are not considered states in PIL can be considered states in conflict of
laws as long as a distinction can be made from one and the other. O, yun lang ang kailangan. Let’s say
Sulu and the Philippines. The laws of sulu are the same as the law of the Philippines. But when we talk
about brunei..
We define private international law as that part of the municipal law of a state which directs its courts and
administrative agencies, when confronted with a legal problem involving a foreign element, whether or
not they should apply foreign law.
There is conflict of laws basically when there is a foreign element and what law will apply to the problem
the situation or the issue being brought before the court. So if the laws are different, like in the Us where
divorce is recognized but here in our country it is not so it is up to the court whether to recognize the
foreign judgement . Eh yung mga bigamy. There are two marriages but the accused is claiming I am
divorced. How can there be bigamy? So the issue is is WON the divorce is valid. Should our courts apply
the law of the country that granted the divorce. Like that. So the elements we already took a look at that.
Elements:
1. Conflict of laws is part of the municipal law of a state.
When we talk about law or what law to apply we look at our laws. I’ll give you an example Article 1753 of
the Civil Code
The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of

the common carrier in case of loss, destruction or deterioration.
That particular provision does not say whether liable or not liable. No, it just tells us what state law shall
apply. This article 1753 is part of municipal law, part of our civil code.
2. There is a directive to courts and administrative agencies
3. There is a legal problem involving a foreign element
So there is an issue if one party is an alien or a resident of a foreign country under the domiciliary theory
or the issue is a contract. And the contract was celebrated or performed or perfected abroad. What if it
involves property located abroad? Then there’s a foreign element.
4. There is either an application or a non-application of a foreign law or foreign laws
There’s a discussion here, eventhough there’s a foreign element, it is not always necessary to look at the
conflict rules. Just read that part. But normally an issue will always arise as to what law will apply, what
jurisdiction whether to allow the foreign judgement, may be enforced or reconized here in our country.
How is conflict of laws observed?
We observe conflict of laws under private international law if we faithfully comply with our conflict rules.
So, 1753 says that is is the law of the country of destination that will govern. One should not insist, ‘no no
no we have this principle of sovereignty’. Of course we look at the rules what law will apply. We really
should comply. We do try to harmonize the rules with equity, legislation and jurisprudence. Private
individuals can also observe conflict of laws by complying with the judicial decisions on the subject. So if a
court says that the Filipino spouse can marry again so the relatives of the ex-husband cannot file a case of
bigamy against her if she marries again. And by not trying to evade the laws of this country by the simple
expedient by resorting to a foreign forum. This is international forum shopping. If the laws of one country
will not appeal to him, he may go to another country where the laws appeal to him. This is not proper.
Using the different countries for one’s own welfare or modus.
We already discussed distinctions and the sources.
Now, I just found the first case Saudi Arabian Airlines vs CA. The issue is WON there is a conflict problem.
The SC said yes because the events occurred in two states the Philippines and Saudi Arabia. Saudia as
well is a foreign corp. doing business in the Philippines. And therefore there is definitely a foreign element.
This is a conflict problem. This case is not purely domestic. A question of jurisdiction confronts the court.
So that’s the sources. Let’s go to jurisdiction
The cases that you’re going to discuss on jurisdiction is already a review so I expect the report to be
substantial and no more discussing of issues not related to the topic.
So, in the case of Saudia as already discussed last time. Does the RTC have jurisdiction despite this
foreign defendant? Article 19, 20, 21 of the civil code after what saudia did to her. The SC said definitely
jurisdiction on the subject matter. Based on the allegations in the complaint we find that RTC possesses
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Section 19 of BP 129 provides, “ RTC shall exercise jurisdiction: xxx
(b)In all other cases in which demand exceeds P300,000. Another consideration is the convenience of the
parties in favour of the RTc assuming jurisdiction. Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over the parties? Yes,
because Saudia is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines it is very easy to serve summons.
Did the RTc acquire jurisdiction over the person of saudia? Yes, because saudia voluntarily appeared
before the RTC by filing a motion to dismiss.
Dacasin vs Dacasin February 15, 2005
Herald dacasin, an American, and Sharon married in manila in 1994. They had one daughter, Stephanie
born in 1995. Obviously since herald is an American sharon acquired American citizenship as well and they
lived in the US. But 5 years later in 1999, Sharon sought in the Illinois court a divorce decree against

Herald. So, the foreign court granted the divorce of herald and Sharon who are now bot the americans.
The court awarded to Sharon sole custody of Stephanie and retained jurisdiction over the case for
enforcement purposes. So Sharon went back to manila and so did herald.
In 2002, they executed a contract for joint custody over Stephanie in Manila. In this agreement, they
made the Philippine court the exclusive forum adjudicating disputes arising from the agreement. So
Sharon sought from the Illinois court an order relinquishing jurisdiction to the Philippine court. In 2004,
Herald sued Sharon in the RTC of Makati because she violated the agreement by exercising sole authority
over their daughter. Sharon sought to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Because remember
the Illinois court retained jurisdiction to enforce the divorce decree. The RTc therefore dismissed the case
for lack of jurisdiction. RTC held that it is precluded to take cognizance over the suit considering the
retention of the Illinois court’s retention of jurisdiction of enforcement of the divorce decree including its
own award of sole custody to Sharon.
ISSUE: WON the RTC may take cognizance of Herald’s suit
The SC said yes. The subject matter of jurisdiction is conferred by law. At the time when this suit was filed
in the RTC, statutory law vests on the RTC exclusive jurisdiction of a suit incapable of pecuniary
estimation. So there was an agreement and he just wanted to enforce the agreement. An acrion for
specific performance as herald’s suit to enforce an agreement belongs to the species of action thus
jurisdiction is vested in the right court.
Indeed, the trial court’s refusal to entertain petitioner’s suit was grounded not on its lack of power to do
so but on its thinking that the Illinois court’s divorce decree stripped it of jurisdiction. This conclusion is
unfounded. What the Illinois court retained was “jurisdiction x x x for the purpose of enforcing all and
sundry the various provisions of [its] Judgment for Dissolution.” Petitioner’s suit seeks the enforcement
not of the “various provisions” of the divorce decree but of the post-divorce Agreement on joint child
custody. Therefore it has nothing to do with the Illinois court.
Another issue, can the RTC enforce the agreement? The answer is No. why because the SC says the
agreement is void. The discussion on thevalidity of the agreement we will discuss under another topic.
We have different topics here. The easiest of course is procedural.
Northwest vs CA
In this case what happened Northwest and Sharp entered into an agreement. NW sued Sharp for
collection of money. Btw, the contract was entered into in japan and NW sued sharp in Japan. Summons
was issued in its office in Japan. Service was unsuccessful and even the person authorized to receive court
processes did not receive the summons because he was not an employee. Sharp received the summons
thru a deputee but sharp failed to appear in the hearing. The Tokyo court proceeded to hear the case and
rendered the decision in favour of Northwest. A suit was filed in the RTC of Manila for enforcement of
judgement.
The defense of sharp is that the judgement is not valid because the Tokyo court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of sharp. According to northwest, how do you know that japan did not acquire
jurisdiction. They have their own laws. So they had to find out first if under Japanese law jurisdiction was
acquired over sharp. But the thing is Japanese law was not pleaded and proven here our courts had to
apply our laws on acquisition of jurisdiction. This is really involves other topics.
The issue here that I want to focus on is to determine if jurisdiction was acquired by Japanese court what
is the rule to be followed? How is jurisdiction acquired? By proper service of summons or voluntary
appearance. So sharp in so far as Tokyo court is concerned is a foreign corporation. What is the Rule?
Rule 14 Section 14 which says in the event a foreign corp doing business in the Philippines (JAPAN).
How do you serve summons?
1. Resident agent designated in accordance with the law for that purpose
2. If there’s no resident agent public officer designated by law
3. or any officer or agent within the Philippines
So how was service of summons served by the Tokyo court upon sharp? Did it follow any of the means
provided by Section 14 Rule 14? Summons was served in the head office in the Philippines. The court

processes were served in the dept. of foreign affairs in the phils and then to the executive judge of the
RTc of manila.
Substantial Compliance
What was the procedure followed? No.2 if sharp does not have a resident agent in japan, on the
government officer designated by the law to that effect. Here the Sc considered the delivery to DFA who
actually facilitated the service of summons to sharp in manila as substantial compliance with the provision.
Valmonte vs CA
The spouse alfredo and Lourdes valmonte are residents of Washington, USA. Alfredo, who is a member of
the Philippine bar, practices his profession. Rosita Dimalanta, lourdes’ sister, filed an action for partition
and accounting of rentals against the spouses. lourdes sent a letter to her sister that all communication
should be sent to her husband in the Philippines. Summons was served to Alfredo. However, alfredo only
accepted the summons pertaining to him and refused to ccept it for his wife. He said that we wasn’t
authorized to accept. Alfredo filed an answer but the wife did not. She was declared in default by the RTC.
ISSUE: WON RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Lourdes who is a foreign defendant
The applicable provision is Rule 14 Section 15 on extraterritorial service of summons. Based on this, the
service of summons must be served either personally or publishing in a newspaper of general circulation
in such places or such time as the court may order or any manner the court may deem sufficient. It did
not comply with any of the 3 methods. There was no prior leave of court. According to the SC the service
of summons made on Alfredo was not a mode allowed with prior leave. What is the heading of Section
15? Extra territorial service. What do you mean by extraterritorial service? Service in the foreign the
country. So any other manner deemed sufficient by the court should also be served outside the Phils.
What happened here was the summons meant for Lourdes was served to her husband here. It did comply
with Section 15. You have to comply with Section 15 because Lourdes is a defendant who is not found
and not residing in the Philippines. Why is Section 15 allowed? Because it is an action quasi in rem. Why?
Because it involve property in the Philippines.
Romualdez vs Licaros
Abelardo and Margarita were married. Then, margarita left for the US where she sought a decree of
divorce in the court of California. In august of 1990 she acquired a decree of divorce. Abelardo filed a
complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity of margarita of the
family code. As margarita was residing in California, abelardo moved that the summons be served thru the
international courier service. The denied that motion instead it ordered that summons be served thru
publication in a newspaper of general circulation for 3 consecutive as well as furnishing the defendant the
summons as well as the copy of the order and a copy of the petition at the given address in the USA.
Margarita received a letter from atty. Valencia informing her that she no longer has the right to use the
family name licaros since her marriage to abelardo has been provisionally dissolved by the RTC of Makati.
So she did not appear in the case filed by her husband.
Won margarita was validly served summons
Yes, under Section 15 of rule 14 extraterritorial service of summons may be affected through 3 modes. (1)
by personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (2) by publication and sending a copy of the
summons and order of the court by registered mail to the defendant’s last known address, also with leave
of court; or (3) by any other means the judge may consider sufficient.
SC said that the service of summons complies with the 3rd mode. Why didn’t it comply with the 2nd mode,
there was publication? Because in the 2nd mode it must be mailed to the last known address. Here what
happened was the summons was served to DFA. Why was this allowed? Because it was the court that
ordered it to be done this way. This is an example of by any other means the judge may consider
sufficient.
Why is Section 15 applicable? what kind of action is this? It affects the personal status of the plaintiff.
Banco du Brazil vs CA.

This case started when this vessel MV Star Ace which encountered engine trouble. This engine asked
permission to dock at the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Compound. Customs believed that this was a
vessel hijacked so they seized the vessel. During this time Poro Point Shipping Services entered into a
salvage contract after the vessel was destroyed by a typhoon. The vessel was later forfeited in favour of
the govt.
Was he able to recover the vessel? Yes. Dura Proof, the salvager, wanted to enforce the salvager’s lien.
What’s that? It’s a fee if you salvage an abandoned vessel. So it filed with RTC a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus. It impleaded banca du brasil. Apparently banco du brasil has an interest over
the cargo. Banco du brasil and other entities were served summons thru publication.
Issue: won the trial court acquired jurisdiction over baco du brasil
What did it involve? Money, bayad. Was this a valid mode of service? According to Sc this was not a valid
service because what duraproof wants here is damages, an action in personam. Extraterritorial service
may only be applied in 4 instances: (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs; (2)
when the action relates to, or the subject of which is property, within the Philippines, in which the
defendant claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded in such action
consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the
Philippines; and (4) when the defendant non-resident’s property has been attached within the Philippines.
At the start of the case what duraproof wanted was to exclude banco du brasil over the res. Later it
became an action in personam. This extraterritorial service was not valid. Therefore jurisdiction was not
acquired over baco du brasil.
November 20, 2013
… Jurisdiction in a case where there is a foreign element. (way microphone diri)
So how to acquire jurisdiction over a foreign defendant? We already know under our rules that the
voluntary appearance even though their service of summons was improper… but how is a proper service
of summons made… or follow the provisions under Rule 14.
Service in person by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person or if he refuses to receive
and sign for it, by tendering it to him. This is what happened to the case of Sharp and Northwest
(Northwest vs CA and Sharp) because apparently they (demanded?) in Japan and there was an attempt to
serve summons in person. The court messenger went there to the office of Sharp in Japan when the
person there refused to receive because he said he was no longer connected to Sharp. So it was done this
way, the other way of serving summons properly is substituted service. But do not forget, in your CivPro,
that this can only be availed of… if for justifiable causes the defendant cannot be served through personal
service. You already encountered cases in your CivPro wherein the SC laid down the guidelines. It is not
enough to go there once or twice, Ok?
And how is it done? In person is mismo from that person who is the defendant. Substituted service, it is
made at the residence of that person with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing inside
that house or in an office, a regular place of business with the secretary.
And in the case of Valmonte vs CA and Romualdez vs Licaros on Extraterritorial Service on the
defendant who is not a resident not found in the Philippines. This is the most common way of serving on a
foreign defendant. So personal, publication of the summons and the copy of the summons and the
complaint and the annexes will be mailed, noh, sent through registered mail to the last known address of
the defendant and any other manner which the court may deem sufficient as discussed in the two cases
yesterday.
So also in Banco du Brazil vs CA we discussed that if the action is in personam, extraterritorial service is
not possible. So Extraterritorial service under section 15 is only possible in an action in rem or quasi-in
rem or it involves persons that is of the plaintiff as in the case of Romualdez vs Licaros.
So Asiavest vs CA, it has issues of jurisdiction just like Northwest, we did not understand, we do not
take up the other topics like choice of law, etc. So we will leave that for the next discussion.

How about Gomez vs CA? (Mcoy’s recitation) yes. Definitely we already also know that if the defendant
is not here in the Philippines and service Extraterritorial and if the action is in personam then it is not
possible for the court to acquire jurisdiction because extraterritorial service is not allowed. OK. Any other?
(The substituted service to the other.. uh..) well there is not foreign element there, so that is under
CivPro. We just want to look at the aspects with the foreign elements.
St. Aviation vs Grand Air, did I assign that? (Queenie’s recitation) Yes. Take note that in this case the
SC did not apply Section 15 on extraterritorial service. Remember what kind of action is this, this is an
action for sum of money. This is an action in personam. But because the case was filed in Singapore, we
will learn later under Choice of law, matters of procedure governed by the law of the forum of the lex fori.
So service of summons is remedial, procedural in nature. And according to Singaporean Law, whatever
service is allowed by our laws and the court. And if Singapore says that this is a proper method of serving
summons, then that is good enough. Meaning that their law on acquisition of jurisdiction or their rules on
acquisition of jurisdiction are not the same as ours. That is why the choice of law is very significant in our
subject. So here is an illustration wherein it is the Singaporean law on the service of summons that
applies. And under their laws, the procedure of sending the summons.. (how was it served? On the
sheriff?) Substituted service, that was allowed under their rules. So our rules are quite strict, but their
rules are more liberal.
Next. Let’s go to Pioneer vs Guadiz. (Bea’s recitation) Yes. So the applicable rule is Section 12, because
we are talking about a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines whether or not registered. In
this case it is not registered with the SEC. So number 2 is not applicable. There is no resident agent
designated in accordance with law for the purpose receiving summons. Meaning that person assigned to
receive summons wala rin. So it has to be number 3. Number 3 says officers or agents. A secretary is not
considered an officer or agent according to the SC. So there was no proper service and therefore the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over such foreign corporation. Very good.
Regner vs Logarta, there are three sisters here. We will only talk about Cynthia. OK. (Blanche’s
recitation) and the SC said, to reiterate what was declared in Balmonte, the 3rd mode like the 1st 2 must
be made outside the Philippines such as through the Philippines embassy of the foreign country where
Cynthia resides. So very easy. No need to expound.
Now.. I don’t think I assigned this to you but this was discussed in your criminal procedure, the case of
Perkin-Elmer Singapore vs Dakila, August 14, 2007. Dakila filed a complaint against
Perkin..Singapore, this is a Singaporean corporation for collection of sum of money in the RTC. So
obviously this is an action in personam. Dakila filed a motion for the issuance of summons with leave of
court to deputize Dakila’s general manager to serve summons outside the Philippines, meaning service in
person. Dakila’s general manager went to Singapore to serve summons on that foreign corporation. Now
Perkin ember Singapore filed with the RTC a special appearance and motion to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction its person. ISSUE: whether there was proper service
of summons over the person of Perkins-Elmer Singapore. And the SC said, no. Because this is an action in
personam. So even if indeed somebody goes there, even though that person is authorized by the court
and that person personally serves the summons on the, maybe the President of that foreign corporation,
the SC said, this kind of mode of extraterritorial service cannot be availed of in actions in personam. Now
if the Perkin-elmer Singapore may be able to file appearance by filing an answer with counter-claim, the
SC said no, because it has been consistent with in all its pleadings in assailing the service of summons
upon it and the jurisdiction of the RTC over its person.
Remember under your CivPro, even if there are other defenses raised in a motion to dismiss based mainly
on the lack of jurisdiction on the person, the existence of other grounds will not make the court acquire
jurisdiction. This is not tantamount to voluntary submission. SC said PES cannot be considered in
estoppels when it filed its answer ad cautelam, with caution, with compulsory counter-claim because it
was in a situation wherein it had no other choice but to file an answer, otherwise the RTC may already
declare that it will waive its right to file a responsive pleading. Neither that the compulsory counter-claim
be considered as voluntary appearance. PES recovered damages and attorney’s fees as a consequence of
the unfounded suit filed against it.
So it just want you to remember that this section 15 cannot apply whatever mode 1, 2 or 3 if the action is
in personam. And by the way, if we talk about publication, the case is not here but we discussed this in
remedial law that the publication which will be made here in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines. No need for publication in that foreign country. That was the ruling in one case that we
discussed in CivPro.

Now one last point is this, what if the defendant is temporarily out of the Philippines. What if he’s a
foreigner and he is a resident in the Philippines but he temporarily went into vacation and an action is
filed against him. What are the ways of serving summons upon such kind of defendant? Under rule 14,
section 16, Extraterritorial service under section 15, personal under section 6 and substituted under
section 7. Can you read Rule 14 Section 16? (Gil) “When any action is commenced against a defendat who
ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court be
also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding section.” Ok so “may”. So pwede ang section
15 according to section 16 but in the case of Palma vs Judge Valdez, the SC said Section 15 is only one
of the ways. Pwede rin ang section 6 and section 7. What was availed of here? Section 7, substituted
service because she was a ____, although she is a Filipina, there is no foreign element but of course this
can also apply to foreigners who are out of the country. SC said that the sheriff does not have to go back
and forth, back and forth to prove that earnest efforts were made to serve it in person. Obviously she is
not here. So substituted service is allowed and therefore it is incumbent upon the person who received
the summons to contact that person who is outside the country. And take note, what does the provision
say? In the case of this Palma, the SC said, does not apply only to in rem and quasi in rem actions, it
applies to any action. So it can be resorted to even if the action is in personam. OK? So just take note of
this case Palma vs Judge Valdez.
So what else? There are cases there on foreign corporations. The issues are mainly whether or not the
corporation is doing business here. If it is proven that the corporation is doing business in the Philippines
whether or not it is registered, the proper way of serving summons is section 12. Just like what happened
in Hahn vs CA and BMW but there is a very ____ presumption as to whether or not it is doing business
here and that is under your corpo. We have no business as to that issue but the SC said that the RTC
acquired jurisdiction over that BMW distributor here because of the proper service under section 12 of
Rule 14. So we will not discuss anymore whether or not the corporation is doing business. OK? That is up
to you. What’s important is that we will know jurisdiction is acquired over such corporation.
Now let us go to the next type of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the RES. This is jurisdiction over a
particular subject matter in controversy regardless of the persons who may be interested in them.
So going back to our example that we already presented. John and Maria. The first question is does the
RTC have jurisdiction over the subject matter which is what, the action for annulment on the ground of
homosexuality. Definitely yes. We have annulment under Rule 45 of the Family Code. So subject matter
ang problem. So does the RTC have jurisdiction to annul the marriage? Yes. Because it has jurisdiction
over the res, the annulment case.
Can the court acquire jurisdiction on the person of John? Yes. Through extraterritorial service of summons
because the action involves a personal status of the plaintiff Maria. Does the RTC have the jurisdiction to
award damages? Answer is NO. Because it is an action in personam (claim for damages). So the
extraterritorial service of summons is only valid for that in rem proceeding. But if there is an in personam
portion aspect of the case, there is no jurisdiction. RTC has no jurisdiction to award damages because
technically jurisdiction over the person had not been acquired. Remember under our discussion in CivPro
that extraterritorial service especially publication mode is only to comply with the due process
requirement. Not really to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. That is why it is only
allowed if the proceeding is in rem or quasi-in rem. OK?
What if ____ property in the Philippines, can the court _______ liability for damages? No, because Janet
occurred personal liability. Unless the court has previously acquired jurisdiction over such property by
attachment, unless the action is converted to quasi-in rem.
OK. So I think we already reviewed. Remedial law review. But now let’s now go to this issue on what the
court must do. We already talked about this. If it is without jurisdiction, dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
Take note of the term. If the court has no jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. If the court has jurisdiction, it may either assume jurisdiction or refuse. Not dismiss, refuse to
assume jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens. This is the basis for the refusal to assume
jurisdiction.
Right now there is this proposal to amend the Rules on Civil Procedure. It was very loud.(?) talk about
that. When I looked at the proposed rule, I really went crazy. And one of the proposal is to make forum
non conveniens a ground for dismissal. But right now the SC said in Pioneer vs Guadiz that forum non
conveniens is not a ground for dismissal, it is a basis for refusal to assume jurisdiction. Meaning this can
be invoked only when the court has jurisdiction and does not want to assume it.

We already went through the Marcos case. Let’s now go to cases on forum non conveniens.
Communication Materials vs CA, is that on the list? Wala sa list? OK. Anyway can you go to Manila
Hotel vs NLRC, (Iris’ recitation) Yes. The NLRC is an inconvenient forum. Take note that definitely NLRC
has jurisdiction over illegal dismissal cases, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is an inconvenient
forum, the SC said, because all the incidents of the case from the time of recruitment, to employment,
dismissal, occurred outside of the Philippines. The inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the
proper defendants, the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not a nationals of the Philippines. Neither are they
doing business in the Philippines. Likewise the main witnesses are non-residents of the Philippines. The
court may have no power to determine applicable laws neither can an intelligent decision be made as to
the law governing the employment contract as such was perfected in foreign soil. There was also no
power to determine the facts. NLRC cannot determine the facts surrounding the alleged illegal dismissal
as all acts complained of took place in Beijing. The NLRC was not in a position to determine whether the
Tiannamen Square incident adversely affected operations of the Palace Hotel to justify respondent Santos’
retrenchment. What else? 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 summons. Jurisdiction over its person was not acquired.
So what are we talking about here? If the court possess jurisdiction, what kind of jurisdiction are we
talking about? Jurisdiction over the subject matter. How will the court know if you can acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant? That will come later upon assumption of jurisdiction. So it has
jurisdiction over the subject matter, yun lang ang importante. And then it will decide whether or not to
assume or refuse on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Aside from the other reasons why this is an inconvenient forum, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over
the person of Palace Hotel. It could have acquired jurisdiction over the Manila Hotel International which is
also a foreign company but they are separate entities from that employer who is Palace Hotel. Now
according to the SC, 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. The problem with Santos was that he was an
overseas worker in Oman. He transferred from Oman to Beijing, China without going through the POEA.
He entered into a personal contract with Palace Hotel and therefore it is not under the protection of the
Labor Department. So 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. And therefore sorry na lang siya.
We have time for more case? Puyat vs Zabarte. (Andrea’s recitation) Zabarte filed a case against Puyat
for sum of money in California. The California court orders Puyat to pay a certain amount. And the ruling
now with the California Court. According to Puyat the RTC was an inconvenient forum because it was
caught to a certain applicable law in California, whatever transaction they had, and pangungutang niya
happened in California. And Zabarte, the plaintiff is not even a Filipino according to Puyat. So what is the
issue? W/n the RTC is an inconvenient forum. The SC is saying here, sure the court in which the case with
a foreign element is filed even if it has jurisdiction may refuse to assume jurisdiction if it is an
inconvenient forum. But if it is a not an inconvenient forum it cannot use that basis forum non conveniens
to refuse to assume jurisdiction. The SC said it is not an inconvenient forum. None of the above. Why? it’s
quite difficult to explain now because we have not reached enforcement. But to make the long story short,
there is no need for presentation of evidence yet. There is just enforcement of the judgment of the
foreign court. No more witnesses, no more things like that. So the present action lodged in the RTC was
for the enforcement of a foreign judgment, there was no need to ascertain the rights and the obligations
of the parties based on foreign laws or contracts. There was no need to look at the foreign law on the
contract, whether or not the contract was valid, no need to do that anymore. So it is not really
inconvenient. OK?
So there are two new cases on forum non conveniens that I was not able to assign. I’ll give it to Marco.
So we will just continue on Tuesday next week. And we will proceed to choice of law… (ESTRELLA,J.)
November 26, 2013
We have distinguished Private International Law and Public IL.
According to 2 schools of Thoughts:

1. Dualist – the majority opinion; the 2 subjects are worlds apart

2. Monist – the 2 subjects are in essence identical for both of them manifest a single concept of law,
ultimately addressed to the same individual
Q: according to Paras why is this use as the title of this book?
A: because this is the title or name given by DEPED/CHED and the Supreme Court use this as far as the
bar examination is concern. Conflict of Laws is the term officially used in the BAR and in this particular
subject.
Cases on Jurisdiction.
Forum Non Convenience
Communication Materials vs. CA
FACTS: ASPAC which is a domestic corp entered into a contract with ITEC, a corporation existing under
the laws of Alabama, USA where the latter engaged ASPAC as its exclusive representative to sell electronic
products exported by ITEC to its sole customer PLDT. Because of ASPAC was allegedly using its
knowledge of ITEC’s product specifications to develop its own line of equipment similar to ITEC’s own,
ITEC filed a case in RTC Makati. A motion to dismiss the suit was filed by ASPAC on the ground that
plaintiff engaged in forum shopping which justifies application against it of the principle of forum non
conveniens was denied by the RTC.
ISSUE: w/n RTC was an inconvenient forum?
HELD: No. The Makati court has acquired jurisdiction over ITEC by the filing of the original complaint.
Thus, having acquired jurisdiction, it is now for the 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 Phil Courts may
refuse to assume jurisdiction in spite of having acquired jurisdiction. Conversely, the court may assume
jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided the following requisites are met. 1. That the Phil
court is one which the parties may conveniently resort to. 2. The Phil court is in the position to make an
intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and 3. The Phil court has or is likely to have power to
enforce its decision. All requisites have been met in this case.
As we have already observed, petitioner are not at liberty to question plaintiff’s standing to sue,
having already acceded to the same by virtue of its entry into the Representative Agreement referred to
earlier.
Thus, 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.[47] 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.
-there is no other reason that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of ITECH and the subject
matter
-the subject matter is the injunction case, court has jurisdiction. Refuse or assume jurisdiction
-jurisdicition over the person is resolved after court has refused or assume jurisdiction. But subject is first
resolved

-RTC is a convenient forum. ITECH come to the Phils to sue ASPAC, besides, the plaintiff here is the
Foreign Corporation so no problem on the jurisdiction over the person.
PHILSEC VS CA
FACTS: Ducat obtained separate loan from AYALA and Philsec secured by shares of stocks which he
owned. To facilitate payment, 1488 Inc assumed Ducat’s obli the agreement whereby 1488 sold to
petitioner ATHONA a parcel of land in Texas while Philsec and Ayala extended a loan to ATHONA as initial
payment of the purchase price. The balance was to be paid by means of Promissory note executed by
ATHONA in favor of 1488, upon receipt of initial payment from 1488, Philsec and Ayala released to DUCAT
from his indebtedness and delivered to 1488 all shares of stock belonging to Ducat.
As Athona failed to pay the interest on the loan, 1488 Inc. sued Philsec, Ayala and Athona in Texas. While
suit is pending, Philsec filed a complaint for sum of money and damages in Makati, reiterating allegations
in their counter claim in Texas. Makati RTC and CA dismissed suit on the ground of forum non conveniens,
while Texas court rendered in favor of 1488 Inc, which judgment became final.
ISSUE: may RTC summarily grant a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens?
HELD: No. The trial court’s refusal to take cognizance of the case justifiable under the principle of forum
non conveniens. First, a motion to dismiss is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, §1, which does not
include forum non conveniens. 16 The propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a
factual determination, hence, it is more properly considered a matter of defense. Second, while it is within
the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only
after "vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances" require the court’s
desistance
The court will only refuse to assume jurisdiction if due to inconvenient forum and what makes it
inconvenient if any of these factors is/are present. If factors are present, then it is a convenient forum. To
refuse to assume jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenient forum is not warranted by circumstance.
In Puyat vs Zabarte, the forum non conveniens is not s ground for motion to dismiss, it was reiterated in
Pioneer vs Guadiz that SC that requires truthfulness in the allegations of the complaint, if in the
allegations of the complaint that any of the factors exists like 1 or 2 or 3 factors are present then perhaps
the forum is inconvenient. But it is not a ground for dismissal. SC said that the discretion of the court to
abstain in assuming on this ground it must only do so when the facts and the special circumstances
require desistance.
Fortunately, I will not require to recite the case of Navida. Kasi walang masyadong issue on forum non
conveniens. It’s just that it’s a Davao case under Judge Carpio. He really looked for grounds for dismissal.
It involves the case of aerial spraying. They tried to dismiss the case like forum non-conveniens. SC Said
that court has jurisdiction. One of the lawyers made a manifestation as to the fact that one of the lawyers
in the case is the brother of Judge Carpio.
Hasegawa vs Kitamura
FACTS: Kitamura initiated the action for specific performance and damages against NIPPON with the
RTC. N contended that the ICA had been perfected in Japan and executed by and between japenese
nationals, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Asserting that RTC is an inconvenient
forum, N questions its jurisdiction to hear and resolve the case. N alleged that the contract subject of the
litigation was entered in Japan, by Japanese nationals and written wholly in Japanese language. RTC has
no significant relationship to the parties following the most significant relationship rule in Private IL.
ISSUE: w/n the jurisdictions of RTC involving contracts executed outside RP by foreign nationals may be
assailed on the principle of forum non conveniens.

HELD: No. First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of
Court does not include it as a ground.77Second, whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the
basis of the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial court.78 In this case, the RTC decided to assume jurisdiction. Third, the
propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination; hence, this conflicts
principle is more properly considered a matter of defense.79
Accordingly, since the RTC is vested by law with the power to entertain and hear the civil case filed by
respondent and the grounds raised by petitioners to assail that jurisdiction are inappropriate, the trial and
appellate courts correctly denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss.
You have to separate jurisdiction and choice of law. We are still looking at jurisdiction. 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. Jurisdiction of subject matter is conferred by law.
Raytheon vs Rouzie
FACTS: Sometime in 1990, Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Connecticut, United States of America, and respondent Stockton W. Rouzie,
Jr., an American citizen, entered into a contract whereby BMSI hired respondent as its representative to
negotiate the sale of services in several government projects in the Philippines for an agreed
remuneration of 10% of the gross receipts.
On 8 January 1999, respondent, then a resident of La Union, instituted an action for damages before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union. The Complaint,7docketed as Civil Case No. 1192-BG,
named as defendants herein petitioner Raytheon International, Inc. as well as BMSI and RUST, the two
corporations impleaded in the earlier labor case.
Petitioner sought the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and forum
non conveniens and prayed for damages by way of compulsory counterclaim.
ISSUE: is the averment in the defendant’s answer that the case involves foreign elements sufficient
ground for the trial court to refuse to assume jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens?
HELD: No. 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.34 Petitioner's averments of the foreign elements in the
instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial court of its jurisdiction over Civil Case No. No. 1192-BG and
the parties involved.
Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non conveniens requires a
factual determination; hence, it is more properly considered as a matter of defense. While it is within the
discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after
vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require the court's desistance.35
NOTE: The principle of FNC is only applicable if the court has jurisdiction. No point of refusing to assume
jurisdiction if the court has no jurisdiction in the first place. It is discretionary to the court to refuse to
assume jurisdiction and based on factors not because ayaw lang ng court kasi inconvenient. Court has
basis to assume even if it’s quite inconvenient. As long as the factors are present. It can assume
jurisdiction.
We are done with jurisdiction. We will start with Choice of law. What will the court do if it assume
jurisdiction? what law shall apply?
November 27, 2013
Choice of Law

So we are now in a situation where the court has decided to assume jurisdiction and the question is, what
law should it apply?
The easiest law to apply is the local law, the internal or domestic law which is the lex fori.
What are the 3 instances where the local court can apply the lex fori or our local laws?
1. The first instance where the court can apply the local law is when the law of the forum expressly
provides in its conflict rules. So we have rules and we already cited an example which is Article
1753 of the New Civil Code.
Article 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of
the common carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration.
2. The next instance: when the proper foreign law has not been properly pleaded and proven.
That means that the applicable law according to our conflicts rules is the foreign law, not the local law,
BUT it is not up to the court to look for the foreign law. It is up to the party who wants to have the
foreign law applied, to plead and prove it.
3. When the case involves any of the exceptions to the application of the proper foreign law.
This is also a situation where the applicable law is the foreign law, according to our conflicts rules, BUT
because of certain conditions or certain exceptions to comity then the court must apply the local law.
Let’s go the first instance.
The first thing that the court must do when a case with a foreign element is brought before it and it
decides to assume jurisdiction is to look at the conflict rule on the matter. Is there a conflict rule on the
matter?
What is a conflict rule? It is a provision of law which tells the court which laws to apply when faced with a
conflict problem.
As an example, we have Article 15 of the New Civil Code. Maybe when you were taking this up in Persons
it meant something to you but under this subject, it has a different perspective.
Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or the status, condition and legal capacity of persons
are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
So anything that has to do with family rights, duties, status, condition and legal capacity of persons,
meaning Filipino citizens, even though abroad, Philippine law will apply. Binding upon citizens. So we have
to apply Philippine law.
Article 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country
where it is stipulated.
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 wherein said property may be found. (10a)
So if the subject matter of the action is property located in Hong Kong, then the proper applicable law is
the Hong Kong law on the matter. Whether or not it is real property or its sale is valid.
We will take up Article 17 later.
So that is the first thing that the court must do. But is it that simple? When the court determines that
Philippine law applies? EASY. The court can just conduct its business.
The second instance.

What if it is the foreign law that applies? Then the court must have to make sure that before it
applies the foreign law, it is properly pleaded and proven.
Even if the foreign law or the lex causae is applicable, when shall our courts apply the lex fori or the
internal or local or domestic or Philippine law? When the applicable foreign law has NOT been properly
pleaded and proven.
We know on the Rules of Court and as reiterated in this case of Singapore Airlines v CA, Philippine
courts will not take judicial notice of the laws of the foreign country.
Therefore, it must be proven by the party who alleges the applicability of the foreign law. So the party
who claims the applicability of Singapore laws has the burden of proof. Here Singapore Airlines is claiming
that Singapore law applies. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the person who wishes to have the
foreign law applied.
With respect to judicial notice, the exception is provided by Rule 129, Section 1 which states:
Judicial notice is given to the law of nations or customary international law.. because it is truly the law of
the forum.
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction
of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government
and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their
seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions. (1a)
So treaty law, insofar as it becomes law for us, which requires Senate concurrence, receives the same
treatment as our own domestic law, just like the Warsaw Convention. It could also be the Hague
Convention, Vienna Convention, the Paris Convention and all those other treaties and conventions to
which the Philippines has adhered to.
HOWEVER, in the case of Dumez Company v NRLC, the SC said: since the administrative bodies are
not strictly bound by the rules of evidence, they may take judicial notice of foreign law. So it is up to the
administrative body concerned. The rule on judicial notice applies only to courts.
In PCIB v Escolin, the SC said: foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proven
like any other fact in dispute between the parties in any proceeding, with the rare exception in
instances when the said laws are already within the actual knowledge of the court, such as (a) when they
are well and generally known or (b) they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and (c)
none of the parties concerned do not claim otherwise.
Therefore, for a foreign law to be applied in the forum in a conflict case, it must be pleaded and proven.
So even if it is applicable but is not properly pleaded and proven, then it cannot be applied.
Let’s go the rules on HOW TO PLEAD AND PROVE A FOREIGN LAW.
A. How to plead? Of course you already know that. Aver the substance of such law in the pleading,
especially the initiatory pleading.
If you are the defendant and you want the court to apply the foreign law, plead it, aver the substance of
such law. State what law or what country’s law it is, the provision number, what it is all about and why it
is applicable to the case at bar.
There are many kinds of law. Not really many, but two types: written and unwritten.
In the Philippines, our laws are written. But there are countries that have unwritten laws.
B. How to prove? There are 2 ways to prove a foreign law:
1. By oral testimony of an expert witness; and

2. By printed and published books of reports of the courts of the country involved.

Even if the law is unwritten, it may be cited in a decision rendered by the court of the foreign country if
pleaded and properly proven in such courts.
In the case of In re: Estate of Suntay.
IN RE: TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED JOSE B. SUNTAY. SILVINO SUNTAY VS IN RE:
INTESTATE ESTATE (G.R. Nos. L-3087 and L-3088 July 31, 1954)
Doctrine: Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such country, may be
allowed, filed, and recorded by the proper Court of First Instance in the Philippines. But proof of such
probate, the jurisdiction of the court over such probate proceedings, and the procedure undertaken
therein, including the applicable foreign law, must be shown.
FACTS: Jose Suntay, a Filipino citizen and resident of the Philippines, died in the city of Amoy, Fookien
province, Republic of China, leaving real and personal properties in the Philippines and a house in Amoy to
his children by his first marriage and children with his second marriage.
Intestate proceedings were instituted in the CFI. His 2nd wife filed a petition in the CFI for the probate of a
last will and testament claimed to have been executed and signed in the Philippines on November 1929 by
the decedent. This petition was denied because of the loss of said will and of the insufficiency of the
evidence to establish the loss of the said will.
Silvino Suntay, a son, claiming that he had found among the files, records and documents of his late
father a will and testament in Chinese characters executed and signed by the deceased on 4 January 1931
and that the same was filed, recorded and probated in the Amoy district court, Province of Fookien,
China, filed a petition in the intestate proceedings praying for the probate of the will executed in the
Philippines or of the will executed in Amoy, Fookien, China.
Witnesses were presented to prove the existence of the will allegedly left by Jose Suntay.
Held
The will cannot be probated by the CFI in this case. The law on the point in Rule 78. Section 1 of the Rule
provides:
Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the laws of such country, may be allowed,
filed, and recorded by the proper Court of First Instance in the Philippines.
Granting that there was a will duly executed by Jose B. Suntay, and that it was in existence at the time of,
and note revoked before his death, the testimonies of the witnesses presented fall falls short of the legal
requirement that the provisions of the lost will must be "clearly and distinctly proved by at least two
credible witnesses." Credible witnesses mean competent witnesses and those who testify to facts from or
upon hearsay are neither competent nor credible witnesses.
The fact that the municipal district court of Amoy, China, is a probate court must be proved.
The law of China on procedure in the probate or allowance of wills must also be proved. The legal
requirements for the execution of a valid will in China in 1931 should also be established by competent
evidence. However, there was no evidence presented to prove this point.
The unverified answers to the questions propounded by counsel for the appellant to the Consul General
of the Republic of China, objected to by counsel for the appellee, are inadmissible, because apart from
the fact that the office of Consul General does not qualify and make the person who holds it an expert on
the Chinese law on procedure in probate matters, if the same be admitted, the adverse party would be
deprived of his right to confront and cross-examine the witness. Consuls are appointed to attend to trade
matters.
To make the long story short, what they wanted to prove here was that there was a proper probate of the
will conducted in China. But what law will apply as to whether the probate in China is valid is Chinese law.
But it is an unwritten law. So, who discussed the essence or the contents of the law? The Consul General
of China.
Is this a proper way of proving a foreign unwritten law?

The SC ruled no. The Consul General is not an expert witness on the matter.
Take note that it has to be an expert witness. And you know very well under your Rules on Evidence that
before a person can be considered an expert witness, you have to what? (Qualify the witness as an expert
on the matter.)
This case involves the testimony of an expert witness.
Let’s go to Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales.
YAO KEE V. SY-GONZALES (167 SCRA 737)
Sy Kiat, a Chinese national, died in 1977, leaving behind substantial real and personal properties here in
the Philippines. Petition for letters of administration filed by his natural children, was opposed on the
ground that Sy Kiat was legally married to Yao Kee, in Fookien, China according to the laws and customs
of China and that the oppositors are his legitimate children.
HELD: For failure to prove the foreign law or custom, and consequently, the validity of the marriage in
accordance w/ said law or custom, the marriage between Yao Kee and Sy Kiat cannot be recognized in
this jurisdiction. In the case at bar, petitioners did not present any competent evidence relative to the law
and customs of China on marriage. The testimonies of Yao and Gan Ching cannot be considered as proof
of China's law or custom on marriage not only because they are self-serving evidence, but more
importantly, there is no showing that they are competent to testify on the subject matter.
Custom is defined as "a rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly observed (practiced) as a
social rule, legally binding and obligatory." The law requires that "a custom must be proved as a fact,
according to the rules of evidence." On this score the Court had occasion to state that "a local custom as a
source of right cannot be considered by a court of justice unless such custom is properly established by
competent evidence like any other fact." The same evidence, if not one of a higher degree, should be
required of a foreign custom.
There were 2 things here that the SC said:
First: the evidence, the testimony of the brother and the other woman, are sufficient to prove that they
got married. No problem, we believe you because that is not hearsay. This proves that the marriage
ceremony took place BUT that is not enough to prove that the marriage was validly celebrated in
accordance with Chinese laws.
If you cannot show the law, cannot prove the Chinese unwritten law on marriage, then you cannot prove
that the marriage is valid.
In this case, the SC said that the testimonies of the brother and the woman are not sufficient to prove the
validity of the marriage because they are not expert witnesses. And they did not present pertinent
published rules or reports of decisions of the courts of China with respect to the laws relative to the
formalities and validity of the marriage there.
That’s it for unwritten laws.
What about written laws?
This is under Rule 132, Section 24. Very easy way.
Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of
Section 19 [written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies
and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country], when admissible for
any purpose, 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, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of
the 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. (25a)
Ask for an official publication thereof. Here in the Philippines, what do you have to show if you are asked
for an official publication of the law? The Official Gazette.
If you have a copy of the Official Gazette, it is already considered a sufficient publication of a law.
We don’t know what consists of an official publication in another country but if it is proven that that
particular piece of paper is the official publication of a foreign law, then that is sufficient.
But most of the time you don’t really get a copy. Most of the time, you get an official copy in the internet.
Download the foreign law.
Is it very easy to prove because you just present the downloaded copy of the law before the court? No
way. Absolutely no way will the court accept that as proof of the written law.
You can present a copy but it must be attested by the foreign official having the legal custody of the law.
Who is that? It depends from country to country.
Not only that. After you get the attestation of such foreign official, go to the Philippine Embassy or
consulate in the foreign country and ask for a certification. The certification of the consular diplomatic
officials, what does that certification say?
That the official who attested is the official who has custody of the law.
How do we know that particular official has the one with the custody of the law? This is will answered by
the certification issued by the consular diplomatic official.
And of course we have the seal of the embassy. And there is that red ribbon that comes along with it.
So that is the procedure for proving a written foreign law.
However, in the old case of Williamette v. A.H. Muzzal, the SC said: Rule 132, Sec. 24 does not
exclude the presentation of OTHER competent evidence to prove the existence of the foreign law.
Williamette v. A.H. Muzzal
This case involves the liability of A.H. Muzzal. Muzzal is stockholder of a Californian corporation. Under
Californian law, stockholders of a corporation are personally and individually liable for the obligations
contracted by corporations. At the time the obligations were contracted, A.H. Muzzal was a stockholder.
Under the Californian law, creditors may institute actions solidarily against stockholders in proportion to
their share holding. The creditors filed an action against A.H. Muzzal as a stockholder for the corporation’s
obligation from Williamette. To prove the law, Arthur Bolton’s testimony was offered in evidence. He was
an attorney at law in California since 1918. He quoted verbatim Sec. 322 of the Civil Code of California. He
also testified that the provision was the governing provision when the obligations were contracted by the
Californian corporation. The trial court ruled in favor of Williamette.
Issue
Whether the foreign law, which was the Californian law, was properly pleaded and proven.
Held
The SC held that the testimony may be allowed as proof of foreign law because our Rules do not exclude
other forms of proof to prove foreign law. So it was allowed.
Aside from the testimony of Attorney Bolton Ragland's Annotated Civil Code of California was presented as
evidence.

So they had copies of the law and this lawyer testified on this law which says that stockholders are
solidarily liable with the corporation and are personally liable as well. We don’t have that here in the
Philippines. Our laws require the piercing of the corporate fiction first.
The SC here said that you don’t have to follow through the letter the requirements of Rule 132 Sec. 24.
There are other ways of proving a foreign law.
CIR v Fisher
This case has the same ruling as Williamette. This case involves the proof of the Californian tax law on
inheritance. A lawyer testified as to such law. Such proof was considered as sufficient by the SC.
Held
To prove the pertinent California law, Attorney Allison Gibbs, counsel for herein respondents, testified that
as an active member of the California Bar since 1931, he is familiar with the revenue and taxation laws of
the State of California. When asked by the lower court to state the pertinent California law as regards
exemption of intangible personal properties, the witness cited article 4, section 13851 (a) and (b) of the
California Internal and Revenue Code as published in Derring's California Code, a publication of the
Bancroft-Whitney Company inc. And as part of his testimony, a full quotation of the cited section was
offered in evidence.
It is well-settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.6
Section 41, Rule 123 of our Rules of Court prescribes the manner of proving foreign laws before our
tribunals. However, although we believe it desirable that these laws be proved in accordance with said
rule, we held in the case of Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal, 61 Phil. 471, that "a reading of
sections 300 and 301 of our Code of Civil Procedure (now section 41, Rule 123) will convince one that
these sections do not exclude the presentation of other competent evidence to prove the existence of a
foreign law."
In that case, we considered the testimony of an attorney-at-law of San Francisco, California who quoted
verbatim a section of California Civil Code and who stated that the same was in force at the time the
obligations were contracted, as sufficient evidence to establish the existence of said law. In line with this
view, we find no error, therefore, on the part of the Tax Court in considering the pertinent California law
as proved by respondents' witness.
In this old case, it seems like the SC considered the lawyer as an expert witness on pertinent taxation
laws of California. Such testimony is sufficient to prove California law.
In Yap v Solicitor General, the SC said that in a naturalization case, mere authentication of Chinese
naturalization law by the Chinese Consul General in Manila was held to be sufficient proof of such law.
This was not allowed in the case of Estate of Suntay but this was allowed here in Yap v Sol Gen because
this was a naturalization case, and according to the Rules, the Rules of Court do not apply to
naturalization proceeding.
Benedicto v CA
With respect to the banking laws of Switzerland cited by petitioners, the rule is that Philippine courts
cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Laws of foreign jurisdictions must be alleged and proved.
Petitioners failed to prove the Swiss law relied upon, either by: (1) an official publication thereof; or (2) a
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied by
a certification from the secretary of the Philippine embassy or legation in such country or by the Philippine
consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent stationed in such country, or by any other
authorized officer in the Philippine foreign service assigned to said country that such officer has custody.
Absent such evidence, this Court cannot take judicial cognizance of the foreign law invoked by Benedicto
and Rivera.
Take note that this is a newer case, 2001. The SC was quite strict on how a foreign law must be proven.
Here the SC will no longer accept affidavits, testimonies of foreign lawyers. The foreign law must be

proved under the requirements given by Sec. 25 of Rule 132, official publication and a copy and
certification.
Here, what happened was an affidavit of a foreign attorney that purportedly proved the laws of his
country was rejected. Why? The statement was made ex parte and he never testified in the Philippines.
In the cases of CIR v Fisher and Willamette v Muzzal, the lawyers came here and testified. That’s why the
SC allowed it.
Next case.
Wildvalley v. CA [G.R. No. 119602, October 6, 2000]
In the Orinoco River in Venezuela, it is a rule that ships passing through it must be piloted by pilots
familiar to the river. Hence, in 1988 Captain Nicandro Colon, master of Philippine Roxas, a ship owned by
Philippine President Lines, Inc. (PPL), obtained the services of Ezzar Vasquez, a duly accredited pilot in
Venezuela to pilot the ship in the Orinoco River. Unfortunately, Philippine Roxas ran aground in the
Orinoco River while being piloted by Vasquez.
As a result, the stranded ship blocked other vessels. One such vessel was owned Wildvalley Shipping Co.,
Ltd. (WSC). The blockade caused $400k worth of losses to WSC as its ship was not able to make its
delivery. Subsequently, WSC sued PPL in the RTC of Manila.
It averred that PPL is liable for the losses it incurred under the laws of Venezuela, to wit: Reglamento
General de la Ley de Pilotaje and Reglamento Para la Zona de Pilotaje No 1 del Orinoco. These two laws
provide that the master and owner of the ship are liable for the negligence of the pilot of the ship.
Vasquez was proven to be negligent when he failed to check on certain vibrations that the ship was
experiencing while traversing the river.
ISSUE
Whether Philippine President Lines, Inc. is liable under the said Venezuelan laws.
HELD
No. The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly proven as fact before the court. Only mere photocopies of
the laws were presented as evidence. For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the
following requisites are mandatory:
(1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and
(2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.
And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, as are printed
and published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the country concerned if proved to be
commonly admitted in such courts.
Failure to prove the foreign laws gives rise to processual presumption where the foreign law is deemed to
be the same as Philippine laws. Under Philippine laws, PPL nor Captain Colon cannot be held liable for the
negligence of Vasquez. PPL and Colon had shown due diligence in selecting Vasquez to pilot the vessel.
Vasquez is competent and was a duly accredited pilot in Venezuela in good standing when he was
engaged.
There is a certain pilotage law in Venezuela which they wanted to apply to the case as to who should be
liable.
Who is liable, the captain of the vessel or the pilot who took over the ship while navigating the Orinoco
River? Wildvalley wanted to apply the Venezuelan law but it only showed a photocopy of the law. The SC
said it is not enough. You have to prove it following Rule 132, Sec. 25.

December 3, 2013
If there’s no proper rule of the written and proper law, the court has no choice but to apply our law of the
forum.
Before we go to the principle of processual presumption, let’s look at the rule on evidence. What do you
mean by the original of a law or the original of a foreign judgement? Will a printout of the official
webpage which contains the law constitute as acceptable proof? The answer is yes. The evidence is in
accordance in _____ or document. That is under the electronic evidence rule. That is why the document
must be printout of the official website or webpages. That is what I normally use in my cases. I handle
quite a few conflict cases wherein I was able to prove the fact of foreign marriage just by downloading
the marriage contract from the Reno State – Nevada State website and it was accepted not as a copy
wherein you have to attach the certification and authentication but as an official document, the original
document. So that is under the electronic evidence rule.
What if a party wants to or is insisting that it is the foreign law that is applicable? After looking at the
conflict rule of the matter, it is the foreign law that applies. But that party who invokes the foreign law
fails to plead or prove. The court has two options. Dismiss the case on the theory that the plaintiff who
relies on the foreign law ____. The argument of the plaintiff is based on the foreign law. If the foreign law
is not pleaded or proven, then the plaintiff has no enough evidence to win, so just dismiss. Or the court
also has the option not to dismiss but hold that the foreign law was not properly pleaded and proven the
presumption of identity arises. It will be presumed. The court will presume that the foreign law is the
same as our own laws on the matter involved. So that is the principle of processual presumption. The
definition of the principle of processual presumption is the recourse of the forum which is not properly
appraised of the foreign law is urged to apply the law it is most familiar with, the law of the forum.
In relation to that, let’s go to the cases on processual presumption.
Northwest Airlines vs CA
First issue was w/n the Japanese court was able to acquire jurisdiction over the person of sharp by
applying our own laws.
MS: For the foreign court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of Sharp, the Filipino corporation, it must
have acquired jurisdiction through the proper procedure. What is there proper procedure? We don’t know.
But it has to be their laws on the procedure that should apply. However…
J: the court has failed to present or plead the procedural laws of Japan, so the SC said because it was not
properly pleaded and proven then it is presumed that the procedural laws of the Philippines shall apply,
applying the principle of processual presumption, it shall be the procedural laws of the Philippines on
service of summons that should apply.
MS: Whether or not there was a valid service of summons on Sharp made by the Japanese courts.
Japanese law was not properly pleaded and proven. So the court has applied the principle of processual
presumption. And applied our own laws on service of summons on foreign jurisdiction under Rule 14
Section 1-12.
NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. vs. CA and C.F. SHARP & COMPANY INC.
G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995
FACTS: Petitioner Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. (NORTHWEST), a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Minnesota, U.S.A., sought to enforce in the RTC- Manila, a judgment rendered in its favor by a
Japanese court against private respondent C.F. Sharp & Company, Inc., (SHARP), a corporation incorporated
under Philippine laws.
Factual and procedural antecedents of this controversy:
On May 9, 1974, Northwest Airlines and Sharp, through its Japan branch, entered into an International
Passenger Sales Agency Agreement, whereby the former authorized the latter to sell its air transportation
tickets. Unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales made by defendant on behalf of the plaintiff under the

said agreement, plaintiff on March 25, 1980 sued defendant in Tokyo, Japan, for collection of the unremitted
proceeds of the ticket sales, with claim for damages.
On April 11, 1980, a writ of summons was issued by the 36th Civil Department, Tokyo District Court of Japan
against defendant at its office at the Taiheiyo Building, 3rd floor, 132, Yamashita-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohoma,
Kanagawa Prefecture. The attempt to serve the summons was unsuccessful because the bailiff was advised by
a person in the office that Mr. Dinozo, the person believed to be authorized to receive court processes was in
Manila and would be back on April 24, 1980.
On April 24, 1980, bailiff returned to the defendant’s office to serve the summons. Mr. Dinozo refused to
accept the same claiming that he was no longer an employee of the defendant.
After the two attempts of service were unsuccessful, the judge of the Tokyo District Court decided to have the
complaint and the writs of summons served at the head office of the defendant in Manila. On July 11, 1980,
the Director of the Tokyo District Court requested the Supreme Court of Japan to serve the summons through
diplomatic channels upon the defendant’s head office in Manila.
On August 28, 1980, defendant received from Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit the writ of summons (p. 276,
Records). Despite receipt of the same, defendant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. Thus, the Tokyo
Court proceeded to hear the plaintiff’s complaint and on [January 29, 1981], rendered judgment ordering the
defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of 83,158,195 Yen and damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum
from August 28, 1980 up to and until payment is completed (pp. 12-14, Records).
On March 24, 1981, defendant received from Deputy Sheriff Balingit copy of the judgment. Defendant not
having appealed the judgment, the same became final and executory.
Plaintiff was unable to execute the decision in Japan, hence, on May 20, 1983, a suit for enforcement of the
judgment was filed by plaintiff before the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 54.
Defendant filed its answer averring that the judgment of the Japanese Court: (1) the foreign judgment sought
to be enforced is null and void for want of jurisdiction and (2) the said judgment is contrary to Philippine law
and public policy and rendered without due process of law.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court. It agreed with the latter in its reliance upon
Boudard vs. Tait wherein it was held that “the process of the court has no extraterritorial effect and no
jurisdiction is acquired over the person of the defendant by serving him beyond the boundaries of the state.”
To support its position, the Court of Appeals further stated:
In an action strictly in personam, such as the instant case, personal service of summons within the forum is
required for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant (Magdalena Estate Inc. vs. Nieto, 125 SCRA
230). To confer jurisdiction on the court, personal or substituted service of summons on the defendant not
extraterritorial service is necessary.
ISSUE: whether a Japanese court can acquire jurisdiction over a Philippine corporation doing business in Japan
by serving summons through diplomatic channels on the Philippine corporation at its principal office in Manila
after prior attempts to serve summons in Japan had failed.
HELD: YES
A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until the contrary
is shown. It is also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and the giving of due notice therein. 6
The judgment may, however, be assailed by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.(See Sec. 50, R 39)
Being the party challenging the judgment rendered by the Japanese court, SHARP had the duty to
demonstrate the invalidity of such judgment.

It is settled that matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the service of process upon a
defendant are governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum. 8 In this case, it is the procedural law
of Japan where the judgment was rendered that determines the validity of the extraterritorial service of
process on SHARP. As to what this law is is a question of fact, not of law.
It was then incumbent upon SHARP to present evidence as to what that Japanese procedural law is and to
show that under it, the assailed extraterritorial service is invalid. It did not. Accordingly, the presumption of
validity and regularity of the service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered by the Japanese court
must stand.
Alternatively in the light of the absence of proof regarding Japanese law, the presumption of identity or
similarity or the so-called processual presumption may be invoked. Applying it, the Japanese law on the matter
is presumed to be similar with the Philippine law on service of summons on a private foreign corporation doing
business in the Philippines.
Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business
in the Philippines, service may be made: (1) on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that
purpose, or, (2) if there is no such resident agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect;
or (3) on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
Where the corporation has no such agent, service shall be made on the government official designated by law,
to wit: (a) the Insurance Commissioner in the case of a foreign insurance company; (b) the Superintendent of
Banks, in the case of a foreign banking corporation; and (c) the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the
case of other foreign corporations duly licensed to do business in the Philippines.
Nowhere in its pleadings did SHARP profess to having had a resident agent authorized to receive court
processes in Japan.
While it may be true that service could have been made upon any of the officers or agents of SHARP at its
three other branches in Japan, the availability of such a recourse would not preclude service upon the proper
government official, as stated above.
As found by the respondent court, two attempts at service were made at SHARP’s Yokohama branch. Both
were unsuccessful.
The Tokyo District Court requested the Supreme Court of Japan to cause the delivery of the summons and
other legal documents to the Philippines. Acting on that request, the Supreme Court of Japan sent the
summons together with the other legal documents to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan which, in turn,
forwarded the same to the Japanese Embassy in Manila . Thereafter, the court processes were delivered to the
Ministry (now Department) of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, then to the Executive Judge of the Court of
First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila, who forthwith ordered Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit to
serve the same on SHARP at its principal office in Manila. This service is equivalent to service on the proper
government official under Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 128 of the
Corporation Code. Hence, SHARP’s contention that such manner of service is not valid under Philippine laws
holds no water.
Saudi Arabian Airlines vs CA
Note: discussion is not under processual presumption but under the general discussion on choice of law.
K: Morada was dismissed by SaudiA without informing her of the cause of her dismissal so she filed a case
for damages based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. SaudiA said that the applicable law is not the
Philippine Law but Saudi Arabian Law. In this case, the SC held that the applicable law is the Philippine
law and not Saudi Arabian law because first, in the choice of the applicable law, there are certain
questions that must answered first.
1. What legal system should apply in a given situation where the significant facts occurred in two or more
state
2. To what extent should the foreign legal system regulate the situation.

Before the choice can be made, there is that process called characterization which is the process of
deciding whether or not …
MS: What is the cause of action under Art 19 and 21?
K: it’s a tort.
MS: there is this traditional rule that in torts, the applicable rule is lex loci delicti comisii or the law of the
place where the tort was committed. So the question here is where was the tort committed?
K: the tort was committed against Morada in the Philippines because it is in the Philippines where Morada
was deceived by SaudiA. It was here where she was asked to go to Saudi in order to drop the charges.
Little did she know that the purpose of her going there was to sign a notice so she could appear before
the Saudi court where she was eventually sentenced to adultery and other Islamic violations she
committed.
MS: But you cannot also deny that it was not only one violation but several violations. They also
committed a tort in Saudi. How then can the court determine what is the lex loci delicti comisii? What is
that place where the tort was committed?
K: the SC applied the State of the most significant relationship rule. Under this rule there are points
of contact that need to be considered such as the place where the injury occurred, place where conduct
causing the injury occurred, the domicile or the place of business of the parties and the place where the
relationship of the parties was centered.
The place of the injury occurred in the Philippines because she was dismissed here.
The domicile – Morada is a Filipino citizen residing and working in the Philippines. SaudiA is a resident
foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines.
The SC considered such factors when it held that the place of injury occurred in the Philippines. Also the
SC the totality of the injury caused to Morada the injury caused to her reputation __ and her rights
occurred here in the Philippines.
MS: in other words, the SC had jurisdiction over the subject matter because what was filed was a tort
under Art 19 and 21 and Philippine court can actually apply Philippine law under the principle of the
most significant relationship if it cannot determine where the tort really happened because there are
several torts committed.
Who shall have the burden of proving if the foreign law is applicable?
K: the burden of proving the foreign law is the party invoking that foreign law. In this case, it is SaudiA
which invoked the foreign law or the Saudi law. So it should be SaudiA who should prove the foreign law.
However, in this case, SaudiA was not able to prove as to what applicable law in the kingdom of Saudi
Arabia is proper for this case.
MS: The plaintiff has never alleged that Saudi law should govern. If indeed SaudiA wants to apply the
foreign law, then it has the burden of proving the Saudi law.
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MILAGROS P. MORADA and HON.
RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 89, RTC of Quezon City
G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998
FACTS: Petitioner SAUDIA hired private respondent MORADA as a flight attendant in 1988, based in Jeddah.
On 1990, while on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, she went to party with 2 male attendants, and on the
following morning in their hotel, one of the male attendants attempted to rape her. She was rescued by hotel
attendants who heard her cry for help. The Indonesian police arrested the 2.
MORADA returned to Jeddah, but was asked by the company to go back to Jakarta and help arrange the
release of the 2 male attendants. MORADA did not cooperate when she got to Jakarta.

What followed was a series of interrogations from the Saudi Courts which she did not understand as this was
in their language. In 1993, she was surprised, upon being ordered by SAUDIA to go to the Saudi court, that
she was being convicted of (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the music in violation of
Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition, sentencing her to
five months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Only then did she realize that the Saudi court had tried her,
together with the 2, for what happened in Jakarta.
SAUDIA denied her the assistance she requested, But because she was wrongfully convicted, Prince of Makkah
dismissed the case against her and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. Shortly before her return to Manila, she
was terminated from the service by SAUDIA, without her being informed of the cause.
On November 23, 1993, Morada filed a Complaint for damages against SAUDIA, and Khaled Al-Balawi (“Al-
Balawi”), its country manager.
SAUDIA ALLEGES: Private respondent’s claim for alleged abuse of rights occurred in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. It alleges that the existence of a foreign element qualifies the instant case for the application of the
law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the lex loci delicti commissi rule.
MORADA ALLEGES: Since her Amended Complaint is based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code, then the
instant case is properly a matter of domestic law.
ISSUE: WON the Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try the case
HELD: YES.
On the presence of a “Foreign Element” in the 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.
COURT disagrees with MORADA that his is purely a domestic case. However, the court finds that the RTC of
Quezon City possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Its authority to try and hear the case is
provided for under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691, to wit:
BP129 Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction:
xxx xxx xxx
(8) In all other cases in which demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney`y’s fees,
litigation expenses, and cots or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned
items exceeds Two hundred Thousand pesos (P200,000.00). (Emphasis ours)
xxx xxx xxx
Section 2 (b), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court — the venue, Quezon City, is appropriate:
Sec. 2 Venue in Courts of First Instance. — [Now Regional Trial Court]
(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) Personal actions. — All other actions may be commenced and tried where the defendant or any of the
defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiff resides, at the election of the
plaintiff.
Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the court a quo found it best to hear the case in the Philippines.
Had it refused to take cognizance of the case, it would be forcing plaintiff (private respondent now) to seek
remedial action elsewhere, i.e. in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where she no longer maintains substantial
connections. That would have caused a fundamental unfairness to her.
Moreover, by hearing the case in the Philippines no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have been
shown by either of the parties. The choice of forum of the plaintiff (now private respondent) should be upheld.
The trial court also acquired jurisdiction over the parties. MORADA through her act of filing, and SAUDIA by
praying for the dismissal of the Amended Complaint on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction.
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.
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 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.
In applying “State of the most significant relationship” rule, 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.
As already discussed, there is basis for the claim that over-all injury occurred and lodged in the Philippines.
There is likewise no question that private respondent is a resident Filipina national, working with petitioner, a
resident foreign corporation engaged here in the business of international air carriage. Thus, the “relationship”
between the parties was centered here, although it should be stressed that this suit is not based on mere
labor law violations. From the record, the claim that the Philippines has the most significant contact with the
matter in this dispute, raised by private respondent as plaintiff below against defendant (herein petitioner), in
our view, has been properly established.
NOTE:
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
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.
Philippine Export vs Eusebio
Note: Read the facts in the digest below
Issue: What law shall be applicable in determining whether 3-Plex has defaulted in its obligation?
Held: since it deals with the essential and intrinsic validity of contracts, the SC held that ___ expressly
provided in our laws in the intrinsic validity of contracts. So in that matter, it is the proper law of the
contract or the law voluntarily agreed by the parties or the law intended by the parties. In the Philippines,
the parties are allowed to choose what law should govern. Since there was no express choice of law in the
contract between the Iraqi government and VP Eusebio, they can choose the law of the law of the State
with the most significant relationship or the law of the place of the performance of the __. In this case,
since the law of Iraq bears the substantial connection of the contract and one of the parties is the Iraqi
government and the place of performance of the contract is in Iraq, so the applicable foreign law -- the
law of Iraq. But since it was not properly pleaded and proven, the doctrine of processual
presumption applies.
MS: there is no conflicts rule on the essential validity of contracts. There are instances where there is no
conflict rule on the matter. This is known when it comes to contracts. Why? The provisions of the contract
will govern. What is applied when it comes to essential and intrinsic validity is the lex loci voluntatis (law
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties) or the lex loci intentionis (law intended by them either expressly or
implicitly).
When a contract is entered into with the foreign government or corporation, it is always best to agree
what law should govern the contract in case of breach. So that will be the applicable law. But if there is no
express choice of law, then apply the most significant relation rule. And it would seem that Iraq has more
significant relationship to the contract than the Philippines. Here the proper law is the foreign law but
nobody bothered to prove to foreign law. So under the principle of processual presumption, the court
can apply the Philippine law.
Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation v V.P. Eusebio Construction Inc.
Facts:
1. The State Organization of Buildings (SOB), Ministry of Housing and Construction, Baghdad, Iraq awarded
the construction of the Institute of Physical Therapy-Medical Rehabilitation Center in Iraq to Ayjal Trading and
Contracting Company for a total contract price of about $18M.
2. Spouses Santos, in behalf of 3-Plex International, Inc., a local contractor engaged in construction business,
entered into a joint venture agreement with Ayjal wherein the former undertook the execution of the entire a
project, while the latter would be entitled to a commission of 4%.

3. 3-Plex not accredited by the Philippine Overseas Construction Board (POCB) assigned and transferred all its
rights and interests to VPECI.
4. The SOB required the contractors to submit a performance bond representing 5% of the total contract
price, an advance payment bond representing 10% of the advance payment to be released upon signing of
the contract. To comply with these requirements 3-Plex and VPECI applied for a guarantee with Philguarantee,
a government financial institution empowered to issue guarantees for qualified Filipino contractors.
5. But what SOB required was a guarantee from the Rafidain Bank of Baghdad so Rafidain Bank issued a
performance bond in favor of SOB on the condition that another foreign bank (not Phil Guarantee) would issue
the counter-guarantee. Hence, Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait was chosen to provide the counter guarantee.
6.Afterwards, SOB and the joint venture of VPECI and Ayjal executed the service contract. Under the contract,
the joint venture would supply manpower and materials, SOB would refund 25% of the project cost in Iraqi
Dinar and 75% in US dollars at an exchange rate of 1 Dinar to $3.37.
7.The project was not completed. Upon seeing the impossibility of meeting the deadline, the joint venture
worked for the renewal or extension (12x) of the performance bond up to December 1986.
8. In October 1986, Al Ahli Bank sent a telex call demanding full payment of its performance bond counter-
guarantee. Upon receipt, VPECI requested Iraq Trade and Economic Development Minister Fadhi Hussein to
recall the telex for being in contravention of its mutual agreement that the penalty will be held in abeyance
until completion of the project. It also wrote SOB protesting the telex since the Iraqi government lacks foreign
exchange to pay VPECI and the non-compliance with the 75% billings in US dollars.
9. Philguarantee received another telex from Al Ahli stating that it already paid to Rafidain Bank. The Central
Bank authorized the remittance to Al Ahli Bank representing the full payment of the performance counter-
guarantee for VPECI's project in Iraq.
10. Philguarantee sent letters to respondents demanding the full payment of the surety bond. Respondents
failed to pay so petitioner filed a civil case for collection of sum of money.
11. Trial Court ruling: Dismissed. Philguarantee had no valid cause of action against the respondents. The joint
venture incurred no delay in the execution of the project considering that SOB's violations of the contract
rendered impossible the performance of its undertaking.
Issue:
What law should be applied in determining whether or not contractor (joint venture) has defaulted?
Held:
The question of whether there is a breach of the agreement which includes default pertains to the INTRINSIC
validity of the contract.
No conflicts rule on essential validity of contracts is expressly provided for in our laws. The rule followed by
most legal systems is that the intrinsic validity of a contract must be governed by lex contractus (proper law of
the contract). This may be the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties (lex loci voluntatis) or the law
intended by them either expressly or implicitly (lex loci intentionis). The law selected may be implied from
factors such as substantial connection with the transaction, or the nationality or domicile of the parties.
Philippine courts adopt this: to allow the parties to select the law applicable to their contract, SUBJECT to the
limitation that it is not against the law, morals, public policy of the forum and that the chosen law must bear a
substantive relationship to the transaction.
In the case, the service contract between SOB and VPECI contains no express choice of law. The laws of Iraq
bear substantial connection to the transaction and one of the parties is the Iraqi government. The place of
performance is also in Iraq. Hence, the issue of whether VPECI defaulted may be determined by the laws of
Iraq.
BUT! Since foreign law was not properly pleaded or proved, processual presumption will apply.
According to Art 1169 of the Civil Code: In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other
party does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner what is incumbent upon him.

As found by the lower courts: the delay or non-completion of the project was caused by factors not imputable
to the Joint Venture, it was rather due to the persistent violations of SOB, particularly it's failure to pay 75% of
the accomplished work in US dollars. Hence, the joint venture does not incur in delay if the other party(SOB)
fails to perform the obligation incumbent upon him.
EDI-StaffBuilders vs NLRC
Issue: what law shall govern with regard to the termination or dismissal of Gran.
Held: in cases of __ what should govern under the local employment. The employment contract signed by
Gran here provides that in matters not provided for in the contract, the Saudi law shall govern. The Saudi
law shall govern the termination of Gran. In international law, the party or person who wants to apply a
foreign law have the burden of proving it. In this case, our courts or the labor arbiter cannot take judicial
notice of a foreign law, because we are only presumed to know our domestic law. Unfortunately in this
case, EDI-Staff Builders failed to prove the existence of the foreign law. According to the doctrine of
presumed identity approach or processual presumption, a foreign law is treated as a question of
fact. Even if it is proven, it must be __ in our jursidiction. Since it was not proven, the law that should
govern in the termination of Gran is the law of the Philippines.
MS: take note in this case, it was stated in the contract of employment that Saudi law will apply. So the
court need not go to the __. Its already there, the lex loci intentionis. But unfortunately, the applicable
foreign law was not pleaded and proven, so again the principle of processual presumption shall apply.
EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. vs National Labor Relations Commission
537 SCRA 409 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Proof of Foreign Law
In 1993, EDI-Staffbuilders, Inc. (EDI), upon request of Omar Ahmed Ali Bin Bechr Est. (OAB), a company in
Saudi Arabia, sent to OAB resumes from which OAB can choose a computer specialist. Eleazar Gran was
selected. It was agreed that his monthly salary shall be $850.00. But five months into his service in Saudi
Arabia, Gran received a termination letter and right there and then was removed from his post. The
termination letter states that he was incompetent because he does not know the ACAD system which is
required in his line of work; that he failed to enrich his knowledge during his 5 month stay to prove his
competence; that he is disobedient because he failed to submit the required daily reports to OAB. Gran then
signed a quitclaim whereby he declared that he is releasing OAB from any liability in exchange of 2,948.00
Riyal.
When Gran returned, he filed a labor case for illegal dismissal against EDI and OAB. EDI in its defense averred
that the dismissal is valid because when Gran and OAB signed the employment contract, both parties agreed
that Saudi labor laws shall govern all matters relating to the termination of Gran’s employment; that under
Saudi labor laws, Gran’s termination due to incompetence and insubordination is valid; that Gran’s
insubordination and incompetence is outlined in the termination letter Gran received. The labor arbiter
dismissed the labor case but on appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision
of the arbiter. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Saudi labor laws should be applied.
HELD: No. The specific Saudi labor laws were not proven in court. EDI did not present proof as to the
existence and the specific provisions of such foreign law. Hence, processual presumption applies and Philippine
labor laws shall be used. Under our laws, an employee like Gran shall only be terminated upon just cause. The
allegations against him, at worst, shall only merit a suspension not a dismissal. His incompetence is not proven
because prior to being sent to Saudi Arabia, he underwent the required trade test to prove his competence.
The presumption therefore is that he is competent and that it is upon OAB and EDI to prove otherwise. No
proof of his incompetence was ever adduced in court. His alleged insubordination is likewise not proven. It
was not proven that the submission of daily track records is part of his job as a computer specialist. There was
also a lack of due process. Under our laws, Gran is entitled to the two notice rule whereby prior to termination

he should receive two notices. In the case at bar, he only received one and he was immediately terminated on
the same day he received the notice.
Lastly, the quitclaim may not also release OAB from liability. Philippine laws is again applied here sans proof
of Saudi laws. Under Philippine Laws, a quitclaim is generally frowned upon and are strictly examined. In this
case, based on the circumstances, Gran at that time has no option but to sign the quitclaim. The quitclaim is
also void because his separation pay was merely 2,948 Riyal which is lower than the $850.00 monthly salary
(3,190 Riyal).
Asiavest vs CA
Asiavest is a company based in Hong Kong. The case was originally filed in Hong Kong. The HK court
rendered judgment ordering Heras to pay. Asiavest filed a complaint in the Philippines praying that the
court __ rendred by the HK court. In this case, Asiavest only presented documentary proof as to the
rendition of the judgment because in the pre-trial conference here in the Philippines, there are certain
facts submitted by Heras that Heras is not doing business in the Philippines and the residence of Heras is
in ___. It was argued here, there was this testimony of the witness of Heras ___ regarding the laws of HK
that Heras never received summons in HK. In fact, he also testified that in the HK, it was not necessary
that the lawyer of the plaintiff will serve summons on the defendant.
Issue: Whether or not the HK law was properly pleaded and proven.
Asiavest never contested the standing of the witness as an expert of HK laws. However, there was
nothing in the testimony of the witness presented by Heras which touched on the specific matter with
regard to service of summons in actions in rem or actions in personam. It would seem that the doctrine
of processual presumption will come into play. The law applicable is the law of the Philippines. Since it
was an action in personam, personal service of summons is necessary which can only be done if the
defendant is located in the state where the summons is served. It is important to note that during the
entire preliminary conference, it was already submitted that Heras was a resident of ____ hence the HK
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person because it should have been served on him in HK but it
was served in the Philippines. The extraterritorial service done here in the Philippines could not have given
the HK court jurisdiction over the person of Heras. As to the issue of proof, Heras only relied on the
testimony of the witness. Under our rules, the only way to prove a foreign law is by an official document
or certification.
MS: Asiavest filed an action against Herras. Herras is a Filipino resident. The case was filed in HK. In the
HK case, the summons was served on him in the Philippines, not in HK. According to the alleged experts,
under HK law, there is no need to serve summons on Herras in HK. According to HK law, ok lang if the
summons is served in the Philippines applying the HK law. But where is the HK law stating that? It was
only the allegation of the expert witness. The was no official publication nor a copy that was certified. It
was only an alleged expert witness who knows the laws of HK on service of summons. According to the
SC, there is no proper pleading and proving the HK law on service of summons so we cannot apply the HK
law. So W/N it is valid service of summons outside HK, we cannot do anything about it. We don’t know.
Under the principle of processual presumption, we have to apply our laws on service of summons, and
under our laws extraterritorial service iyon -- HK court and serving on Heras in the Philippines. Is
extraterritorial service of summons allowed? Yes, but the action must be in rem or quasi in rem. This is an
action in personam which does not allow extraterritorial service. Therefore, the summons (in the HK case)
was not served properly on Herras.
This is another case that includes all topics, jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement of judgement.
Asiavest Limited vs Court of Appeals
295 SCRA 469 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Service of Summons to a Non Resident –
Processual Presumption
In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio Heras to pay US$1.8 million or its equivalent, with interest, to
Asiavest Ltd. Apparently, Heras guaranteed a certain loan in Hong Kong and the debtor in said loan defaulted
hence, the creditor, Asiavest, ran after Heras. But before said judgment was issued and even during trial,
Heras already left for good Hong Kong and he returned to the Philippines. So when in 1987, when Asiavest

filed a complaint in court seeking to enforce the foreign judgment against Heras, the latter claim that he never
received any summons, not in Hong Kong and not in the Philippines. He also claimed that he never received a
copy of the foreign judgment. Asiavest however contends that Heras was actually given service of summons
when a messenger from the Sycip Salazar Law Firm served said summons by leaving a copy to one Dionisio
Lopez who was Heras’ son in law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment can be enforced against Heras in the Philippines.
HELD: No. Although the foreign judgment was duly authenticated (Asiavest was able to adduce evidence in
support thereto) and Heras was never able to overcome the validity of it, it cannot be enforced against Heras
here in the Philippines because Heras was not properly served summons. Hence, as far as Philippine law is
concerned, the Hong Kong court has never acquired jurisdiction over Heras. This means then that Philippine
courts cannot act to enforce the said foreign judgment.
The action against Heras is an action in personam and as far as Hong Kong is concerned, Heras is a non
resident. He is a non resident because prior to the judgment, he already abandoned Hong Kong. The Hong
Kong law on service of summons in in personam cases against non residents was never presented in court
hence processual presumption is applied where it is now presumed that Hong Kong law in as far as this case is
concerned is the same as Philippine laws. And under our laws, in an action in personam wherein the defendant
is a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court, personal service of
summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This method of service
is possible if such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is not found therein, the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case
against him. Without a personal service of summons, the Hong Kong court never acquired jurisdiction.
Needless to say, the summons tendered to Lopez was an invalid service because the same does not satisfy the
requirement of personal service.
Crescent vs M/V Lok Maheswari
What was filed was __ of India, it was chartered by another company which is a South Korean company
which was subchartered by Transmar and Portserv. The Portserv had an agreement with Crescent
Petroleum to deliver oil to a port in Canada. Now, despite repeated demands, Portserve failed to pay for
the transaction – for the oil. When M/V Lok Maheshwari docked in the City of Cebu sometime in 1996,
Crescent Petroleum filed an action for sum of money and a prayer for temporary restraining order. The
vessel was attached here in the Philippines. But everything else is foreign. The vessel, the parties are all
foreign.
Issue: If ever the court assumed jurisdiction, what is the applicable law?
Held: the applicable law is the law of Canada. Under the multiple contact test, there are 7 factors to be
considered in determining which law will be best used.
7 factors:
1. The law of the place of the wrongful act - Canada

2. The law of the flag – India
3. Allegiance of the injured party – Canada
4. Place of allegiance or domicile of the defending ship owner – Canada (subcharterer) and India
5. Place of contract – Canada
6. Accessibility of the foreign law - N/A
7. Law of the forum - Philippines
Of the 7 factors, only one belongs in our jurisdiction so the best law to be applied is that of Canada
notwithstanding there is an agreement that the law of NY shall be applicable. Such agreement is not
conclusive.

MS: Multiple contact test – another test which is applied when there is an issue as to what law shall
apply. Look at all these factors. The law of country which has the most factors will be applied.
CRESCENT PETROLEUM, LTD., Petitioner, vs. M/V "LOK MAHESHWARI," THE SHIPPING
CORPORATION OF INDIA, and PORTSERV LIMITED
G.R. No. 155014 November 11, 2005
FACTS:
Respondent M/V "Lok Maheshwari" (Vessel) is an oceangoing vessel of Indian registry that is owned by
respondent Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of India
and principally owned by the Government of India. It was time-chartered by respondent SCI to Halla Merchant
Marine Co. Ltd. (Halla), a South Korean company. Halla, in turn, sub-chartered the Vessel through a time
charter to Transmar Shipping, Inc. (Transmar). Transmar further sub-chartered the Vessel to Portserv Limited
(Portserv). Both Transmar and Portserv are corporations organized and existing under the laws of Canada.
On or about November 1, 1995, Portserv requested petitioner Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. (Crescent), a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of Canada that is engaged in the business of selling
petroleum and oil products for the use and operation of oceangoing vessels, to deliver marine fuel oils (bunker
fuels) to the Vessel. Petitioner Crescent granted and confirmed the request through an advice via facsimile
dated November 2, 1995. As security for the payment of the bunker fuels and related services, petitioner
Crescent received two (2) checks in the amounts of US$100,000.00 and US$200,000.00. Thus, petitioner
Crescent contracted with its supplier, Marine Petrobulk Limited (Marine Petrobulk), another Canadian
corporation, for the physical delivery of the bunker fuels to the Vessel.
On or about November 4, 1995, Marine Petrobulk delivered the bunker fuels amounting to US$103,544
inclusive of barging and demurrage charges to the Vessel at the port of Pioneer Grain, Vancouver, Canada.
The Chief Engineer Officer of the Vessel duly acknowledged and received the delivery receipt. Marine
Petrobulk issued an invoice to petitioner Crescent for the US$101,400.00 worth of the bunker fuels. Petitioner
Crescent issued a check for the same amount in favor of Marine Petrobulk, which check was duly encashed.
Having paid Marine Petrobulk, petitioner Crescent issued a revised invoice dated November 21, 1995 to
"Portserv Limited, and/or the Master, and/or Owners, and/or Operators, and/or Charterers of M/V ‘Lok
Maheshwari’" in the amount of US$103,544.00 with instruction to remit the amount on or before December 1,
1995. The period lapsed and several demands were made but no payment was received. Also, the checks
issued to petitioner Crescent as security for the payment of the bunker fuels were dishonored for insufficiency
of funds. As a consequence, petitioner Crescent incurred additional expenses of US$8,572.61 for interest,
tracking fees, and legal fees.
On May 2, 1996, while the Vessel was docked at the port of Cebu City, petitioner Crescent instituted before
the RTC of Cebu City an action "for a sum of money with prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of
preliminary attachment" against respondents Vessel and SCI, Portserv and/or Transmar.
On May 3, 1996, the trial court issued a writ of attachment against the Vessel with bond at P2,710,000.00.
Petitioner Crescent withdrew its prayer for a temporary restraining order and posted the required bond.
On May 18, 1996, summonses were served to respondents Vessel and SCI, and Portserv and/or Transmar
through the Master of the Vessel. On May 28, 1996, respondents Vessel and SCI, through Pioneer Insurance
and Surety Corporation (Pioneer), filed an urgent ex-parte motion to approve Pioneer’s letter of undertaking,
to consider it as counter-bond and to discharge the attachment. On May 29, 1996, the trial court granted the
motion; thus, the letter of undertaking was approved as counter-bond to discharge the attachment.
ISSUE:Whether the Philippine court has or will exercise jurisdiction and entitled to maritime lien under our
laws on foreign vessel docked on Philippine port and supplies furnished to a vessel in a foreign port?

RULING:In a suit to establish and enforce a maritime lien for supplies furnished to a vessel in a foreign port,
whether such lien exists, or whether the court has or will exercise jurisdiction, depends on the law of the
country where the supplies were furnished, which must be pleaded and proved.
The Lauritzen-Romero-Rhoditis trilogy of cases, which replaced such single-factor methodologies as the law of
the place of supply. The multiple-contact test to determine, in the absence of a specific Congressional directive
as to the statute’s reach, which jurisdiction’s law should be applied. The following factors were considered: (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. This
is applicable not only to personal injury claims arising under the Jones Act but to all matters arising under
maritime law in general
The Court cannot sustain petitioner Crescent’s insistence on the application of P.D. No. 1521 or the Ship
Mortgage Decree of 1978 and hold that a maritime lien exists. Out of the seven basic factors listed in the case
of Lauritzen, Philippine law only falls under one – the law of the forum. All other elements are foreign –
Canada is the place of the wrongful act, of the allegiance or domicile of the injured and the place of contract;
India is the law of the flag and the allegiance of the defendant shipowner. Applying P.D. No. 1521,a maritime
lien exists would not promote the public policy behind the enactment of the law to develop the domestic
shipping industry. Opening up our courts to foreign suppliers by granting them a maritime lien under our laws
even if they are not entitled to a maritime lien under their laws will encourage forum shopping. In light of the
interests of the various foreign elements involved, it is clear that Canada has the most significant interest in
this dispute. The injured party is a Canadian corporation, the sub-charterer which placed the orders for the
supplies is also Canadian, the entity which physically delivered the bunker fuels is in Canada, the place of
contracting and negotiation is in Canada, and the supplies were delivered in Canada.
There are many tests that are applicable in the choice of law because of the fact that we cannot have a
conflicts rule on every particular issue that may be brought to the court. So there are tests to be applied
such the most significant relationship test and the multiple contact test.
December 4, 2013
Cases on processual presumption and in relation of choice of law, this cases is in relation to our next
topic. This case of LWV Construction vs. Lupo.
Facts: LWV hired work to a company. After working for more than 5 years, Lupo left Saudi and
subsequently resign thereafter he filed a claim for a long service award but there is no response from
LWV. So on December 11, 2000 he filed a money claim to the NLRC then LWV contended that action of
Lupo has already prescribe since he left Saudi in 1999 citing the Saudi Arabian Labor code, Art. 13 that
the action for payment of service award must be filed within one year from termination of contract and
LWC said it already prescribed.
Issue: what law should be applied.

Held: the law of Saudi Arabia should not be appled.
Question: under our labor code has the action prescribed?
Answer: no.
The SC held that Art. 291 of the Labor Codeshould be applied because it should not apply only in the
Philippine but also overseas. The SC cited the case of Catalin vs. POEA saying that money claims are not
limited to be recoverable under Labor Code but also applies to overseas contract workers. As a general
rule, foreign procedural laws will not applied in the forum. Procedural matters such as service of processes
are govern by law of the forum. The court of the forum which is the Philippines do not enforce any forum
claim which is obnoxious to the public policy and in this case the application of foreign law which is Saudi
law if applied would be contravene to the public policy on protection of labor. Hence, the Sc said that the
action of Lupo has not prescribed.
Even if the foreign law is applicable, we have here the exceptions to comity. If you look at your book, it
says here the application of foregn law, the first exception here is that when the foreign law is contrary to

established public policy of the State. And this portion Article 17 paragraph 3 is a conflict rule it says
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.
So if already established that the labor code is a compilation of law which have for their object public
policy and it should not be rendered ineffective because there is another law like the Saudi law on
prescription which says otherwise.
Lets go to Vienna Convention on the law of treaties article 27. according to this provision, a state must not
invoke of its internal law as justification for failure to perform the treaty.
Lets continue, this one noh.. article 17. 3. so what is this mean? It means the Philippine law which is ____
for certain acts within the country and other local laws cannot be displaced by foreign laws or judgment or
determinance or convention agreed upon. so here in the case of Lupo, we are not talking about
convention because there is another law that in conflict of our labor code which has different prescriptive
periods. However, if we are talking about treaty to which the Philippine is a party. The GR is that the phil.
Is bound thereby and we cannot invoke article 17 for failure to assume obligation under the treaty.
What do you mean by public policy then? What are these laws have to do with public policy? Take note if
it is the law of another country will apply article 17 but we are talking about conventions then we apply
article 27 of Vienna convention. So what do you mean by public policy? According to the author, it is the
manifest will of the state. The public policy of the state is manifested in the constitution. Now if we have
dissimilarities between our law and law of foreign country, a mere dissimilarity does not render the
enforcement of a foreign law normally applicable. The public policy must strong or great importance. The
phil. Law to be applied because of issue on public policy, the public policy must strong or great
importance. A foreign should be denied enforcement in the forum only when it violates fundamental
principle of justice, conception of good morals. Now going back to the case of Lupo, we’re talking about
prescriptive period, it has nothing to do with the rights of Filipino worker then it just mere dissimilarities.
Here we are talking about public policy such as fundamental principle of justice and the constitutional
general principle. So public policy according to the author, that is changing ideas, one maybe against
public policy yesterday may no longer against now. What is an example? In ancient times.
Lets go the cases in relation to this, cadalin vs. POEA.
Facts: this is case filed by cadalin against his foreign employer for unpaid benefits. So foreign employer
argued that the law should be govern by law of Bahrain which is incorporated in the overseas contract
which is prescribe one year while the POEA administrator argued that the law applicable is the art. 1144
of the Civil code which provides that all claims in the written contract shall be prescribed within 10 years.
Issue: what law should be applied?
Held: the court held that as a general rule when there is varies statute, the ___ of the forum shall apply
with foreign law but however this rule admit exceptions if the foreign law is contrary to the established
public policy, the foreign should not be admitted and the law of the forum should be applied. In this case,
if we apply the foreign law, it is contrary to our public policy in the protection of labor.
Lets go to the case of Pakistani airlines vs ople.
Facts:
Here there is a contract of employment where it states that the Pakistani will apply. We are talking about
lex loci celebrationis. The Sc held that despite that whatever you stated there is against public policy of
the state in relation to protection of labor and therefore cannot be applied.

The next case, I really don’t understand it, Bank of America vs. American realty
The Sc held that principle under rule 2, sec. 4 splitting of cause of action is a public policy of the state. I
really don’t know why.
Lets go to next exception which when the foreign law is contrary to universally considered principle of
morality. By the way, regarding public policy what is rule when we have conflict rule of the matter. When
we have conflict rule on the matter expression of public policy, therefore any foreign law, judgment,
contracts contravenes our ____ on the matter is clearly against our public policy. An example given is
public policy against joint will as enunciated in art. 818. because we have rule on the matter that is
violative in our public policy. But if we have conflict rule on the matter does not necessarily follow that a
foreign law different from ours is contrary to public policy. So therefore we have to discover our history of
publice policy. We have to look our constitution.. and in case of bank of America our rules of court.
So this one, the second exception the foreign law even if applicable if our conflict rule says that the
foreign law is applicable it cannot be applied if it is contrary to the universal principle of morality. Like the
sale of human flesh for pleasure.
Next when the foreign law to be applied is procedural in character
So normally as a general rule, when it comes to procedural aspect we apply our rule. Like for example a
case of foreign element was filed here whether or not the marriage between foreigner and Filipino is valid
maybe applied the foreign law but with respect of the procedure it is the law of the forum will be applied.
In our country there is certain principle that would be procedural or substantive. The procedure is
determined by the law of the forum regardless where the transaction occurred which claimed transaction
arose. Therefore foreign procedural law generally not enforce or recognized in the forum. What are the
examples of a procedural aspect? Forms of proper actions, kind of pleading file.
However there is purely procedural but considered substantive in another forum and we go back to the
case of cadalin vs. POEA. There is issue of prescription. What is prescription? It is substantive for us but if
you read the entire case the SC said that the law on prescription is sui generis. So far as conflict of law is
concern it is sui generis. So if it is procedural law then it will not be applied as a foreign law. that is with
respect to 3rd exception to the comity. Lets continue tomorrow.
December 11, 2013
Now, whenever the foreign judgment sought to be recognized or enforced, again, it must be proven in
accordance with the Rules (Rules or Court). And how do you prove a foreign judgment? You prove it the
same way you prove a foreign law. Now, there are some judgments that can be recognized but not
enforced.
Examples of such judgment are:
1. Declaratory judgments;
2. Judgments which give no affirmative relief such as judgment of dismissal of claim; and
3. Judgments which determine parties’ interest in a sale or status like:
a. a judgment declaring title to land,
b. providing for adoption; or
c. divorce;

Jay, would you like to remind the class of the case Northwest vs Sharp on the issue of enforcement.
Who’s reporting? Ahh, you (referring to Mr. Tay) (Na, dili jud maklaro ang tingog ni Tay. Sorry. Pero I’ll
try).
Jonathan’s Report:
FACTS: Sharp challenges the jurisdiction of Japan(?) saying that they cannot enforce the judgement in
the Philippines because they have not acquired jurisdiction.
ISSUE: W/N a judgment in a Japanese court can be enforced in the Phil.
HELD: The Supreme Court raised two points on why enforcement of the judgment should be allowed.
First, enforcement should be allowed because there is this concept of processual presumption. We apply
the rules of procedure of the place where the judgment is rendered. But since the rules of procedure of
Japan were not pled, we use the concept of processual presumption. Now, using this concept, we can say
that there is valid service of summons on sharp by the Japanese court.
Second, there is this presumption that foreign judgments are valid. So, in this case, this presumption was
not rebutted by sharp.
Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the enforcement of the judgment of the Japanese Court.
Ma’am Suarez:
So here, on service of summons in Japan, processual presumption was applied because the law on service
of summons of japan was not proven. And therefore, we apply our own laws. And it was shown in this
case that there was a valid service of summons. Thus, the court of Japan acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant Sharp.
A foreign Judgment, when it is sought to be enforced here, or recognized, it is not proper to bring up the
merits of the case. One can only repel the foreign judgment if any of these are not present. In the case of
Sharp, it was proven that there was proper service of summons. Therefore, the judgment cannot be
repelled on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court further held that a foreign judgment is
presumed to be and binding in the country from which it comes until the contrary is shown. So that is
Sharp vs Northwest.
Let us continue with the discussion before we go to the requisites. In your book there is a discussion on
why not all foreign judgments can be recognized or enforced in the Phil.
1. The lack of the requisites – That the judgement is invalid because of:
a. Lack of jurisdiction;
b. Absence of notice;
c. Fraud;
d. etc ;
2. A judgment is resting on a Government claim on a foreign Court. This is under Public International
Law. Otherwise, our courts will be putting themselves in the service of the implementation of political
decisions of a foreign country;
3. It was not proven according to our rules;
4. If they contravene our public policy;
5. If the foreign judgment contradict one another;
6. If the decisions are shockingly corrupt;
But in any case, a foreign judgment is respected because of comity. If any of the exceptions to comity is
present, then the foreign judgment may not be enforced or recognized here. Just take note that the
exceptions to comity apply to foreign judgments and foreign laws.
Let’s go to the requisites.

For a judgment to be enforced here or be recognized by our courts, it must be:
1. a judgment in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding.

2. Defendant must be given notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard. So there must be due
process.
3. The judgment must be procedurally sound.
4. And the court need not be a judicial court. It may be an administrative tribunal.
Now, in your book, there is this case ____vs Tate 67Phil172
FACTS: Mrs. B and her Children sued Tate in the CFI, Manila in the enforcement of a judgment rendered
by the Hanoi Court in favor of B for payment of 56,000. Tate was declared in default by the Hanoi court
for failure to appear in trial. So the CFI of Manila dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because Tate
was not a resident thereof.
ISSUE: W/N the CFI of Manila should enforce the judgment of the Hanoi Court.
HELD: The Supreme Court said no. Here, it is an action in personam. And therefore, the court of Hanoi did
not acquire jurisdiction over Tate. Therefore, a requisite is missing. The judgment cannot be enforced
here.
Let’s just go to the requisites first before we go to the cases.
The second requisite is:
The judgment must be on a civil or commercial matter. So, penal judgments cannot be enforced here.
The following judgments cannot be enforced in the Philippines as they fall in the exceptions to the
application of a foreign law:
1. Exceptions to comity;
2. Criminal cases;
3. Tax cases;
4. Strict administrative proceedings;
The third requisite: the third requisite is this. na-confuse na ko sa iya discussion. Mao man
gud ni ang time na wala notes si ma’am. So, pasensya jud. Pero mao jud ni ang naka-record.
The best way to repel a foreign judgment is the best way to look for a defect under the third requisite. So,
for a judgment to be enforced here:
1. The foreign court that rendered the decision must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over
the parties. And the one who wants to repel the foreign judgment must prove that there was want of
notice. Now, how do you know if there was proper notice to the parties? You look at the procedural
law. That is where what law will apply.
2. Another ground is when there is collusion. When parties conspire to obtain a desired judgment from
the foreign court.
3. Fraud.
4. Mistake of fact or law.
5. the judgment must not contravene a sound and established public policy
So, let us talk about jurisdiction of the court. By whose standard will the competency of jurisdiction over a
case in question be adjudged? The answer is the foreign court which rendered judgment to be a court of
competent jurisdiction in the international sense. It should be competent not only within its own law but
also according to the law of the second state where the judgment is sought to be enforced. So if
somebody here comes to enforce a judgment of a witch doctor somewhere in Africa, well that is not a
foreign court of competent jurisdiction in the international sense.

Now, let us go to fraud. The fraud that can be used to repel a judgment must be extrinsic. You already
know that. Diba FAME in your civil procedure? Extrinsic fraud is that which deprives a party of the
opportunity to make his full and complete defense or fraud in obtaining jurisdiction over the defendant.
Some examples are: a. bribery of judges; b. false promise of a compromise; c. suppression of an essential
document; or d. when the amount is misrepresented.
But intrinsic fraud is not a ground to repel a foreign judgment. What are examples: a. perjury; b.
misrepresentation of evidence;
Now, clear mistake of fact or law, there is only one example. The case of ________vs ______(wa jud ko
kadungog)
4th requisite, the judgment must not contravene a sound and established public policy.
5th, the judgment must be res judicata in the state which rendered the decision. If you remember, in civil
procedure, Rule 39 Sec. 48, on what is the effect of a foreign judgment, we will take that up when we
discuss the cases.
Before we discuss the cases, we will discuss the case of Mijares vs_____, April 12, 2005? Did I assign it? I
did not? Okay.
FACTS: In 1991, a complaint was filed in the US district court of Hawaii, against the Marcos estate. This
was brought by Mijares et.al, Filipino citizens who experienced abuse in the hands of police or military
forces during the Marcos regime. So, eventually the Hawaii court rendered judgment in favor of Mijares
et.al ordering the Marcos estate to pay 1.96Billion Dollars. It was appealed in the US court of Appeals and
became final and executor. So, they filed for enforcement of the judgment of the US court.
ISSUE: can the foreign judgment be enforced in the Phil.
HELD: Yes. The rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations has established a usage among civilized
states which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected.
Therefore, under Sec 48 of Rule 39, Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders.
The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render
the judgment or final order is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is
conclusive upon the title to the thing; and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want
of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
This is where the requisites come from. Therefore, a foreign judgment is susceptible to impeachment in
our courts on these grounds.
Now, the next question is how do you do it? Do you have to produce evidence as to the merits of the
case? The answer is no. Although the procedure in an action for recognition or enforcement is not in our
rules, therefore it will fall under the ordinary rules (I think ang gina mean ni mam kay since no specific
rule for it, the general rules will apply). However, I think, in reality instead of an action, instead of a
complaint, it is a petition. So it might fall under special proceedings.
But the Supreme Court here distinguished an enforcement case from an ordinary civil action. Example, if
the civil action is culpa aquiliana, what is the proper action? In culpa aquiliana, to file an action in court,
you must state a cause of action. But for enforcement of judgment, the cause of action is not derived
from a tortious act. The question is not whether or not Marcos committed those acts. But the cause of
action is derived from the foreign judgment itself. Now in a civil case, the proof is the tortious act
committed by the defendant who is allowed to rebut the allegation. In enforcement cases, the proof is the
foreign judgment. You have to show the court a valid copy of the judgment. In ordinary civil cases, the

defendant can rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. But in enforcement cases, the presentation of evidence
is restricted to a review of the jurisdiction of the foreign court, the service of notice, collusion, fraud or
mistake of fact. Hence, the Supreme Court reminds us in Mijares vs Ranada that we have no business
looking into the merits of the judgment. That is already res judicata.
Now we will just recite based on the case list for enforcement.
1st case, katong kay ate suzette. I can’t hear anything…. So, antos na lang ta aning akuang digest. Hehe..
G.R. No. L-22470 May 28, 1970
SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC., defendant-appellant.
FACTS: Under a Contract NAGARMULL(plaintiff), a foreign corporation with offices at No. 8 Dalhousie
Square (East) Calcutta, India, agreed to sell to BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY(defendant), a
domestic corporation, 1,700,000 pieces of Hessian bags at $26.20 per 100 bags. Shipment of these bags
was to be made in equal installments of 425,000 pcs. or 425 bales.
Plaintiff advised defendant that of the 850 bales scheduled for shipment in July and August, the former
was able to ship only 310 bales owing to the alleged failure of the Adamjee Jute Mills to supply the goods
in due time. In a letter, defendant requested plaintiff to ship 100 bales of the 540 bales defaulted from
the July and August shipments. In this connection, it may also be mentioned that of the 425 bales
scheduled for shipment in September, 54 bales were likewise defaulted resulting in a total of 154 bales
which is now the object of the controversy.
The Government of India then increased the export duty of jute bags from 80 to 350 rupees per ton, and
plaintiff requested defendant to increase its letter of credit to cover the enhanced rate of export duty
imposed upon the goods that were to be shipped in October, reminding the latter that under their
agreement, any alteration in export duty was to be for the buyer's account.
Hence, defendant, in compliance with plaintiff's request, increased the amount of its letter of credit by
$10,986.25 to cover the increase in export duty on 425 bales scheduled under the contract for the
shipment in October, 1949. However, plaintiff wrote to defendant for a further increase of $4,000.00 in its
letter of credit to cover the shipment of 154 bales which under the contract should have been included in
the July, August and September shipments.
Defendant received notification from the Bengal Chamber of Commerce Tribunal of Arbitration in Calcutta,
India, advising it that Plaintiff applied to said Tribunal for arbitration regarding their claim. The Tribunal
requested the defendant to send them its version of the case. This, defendant did thru the then
Government Corporate Counsel, former Justice Pompeyo Diaz.
The whole case revolved on the question of whether or not defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the
payment of increased export taxes imposed by the Indian Government on the shipments of jute sacks.
Defendant contended that if the jute sacks in question were delivered by plaintiff in the months of July,
August, and September, 1949, pursuant to the terms of the contract, then there would have been no
increased export taxes to pay because said increased taxes became effective only on October 1, 1949,
while on the other hand, plaintiff argued that the contract between the parties and all papers and
documents made parts thereto should prevail, including defendant's letter of September 29, 1949;
The Bengal Chamber of Commerce, Tribunal of Arbitration, refused to sustain defendant's contention and
decided in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of 18,562 rupees
and 8 annas. This award was thereafter referred to the Calcutta High Court which issued a decree
affirming the award;
Defendant refuses to pay plaintiff's claim because the same has no foundation in law and in fact.
Thereafter, no communication was received by defendant from plaintiff or its lawyers regarding their claim
until June, 1959, when the present complaint was filed.

As may be gathered from the pleadings and the facts stipulated, the action below was for the
enforcement of a foreign judgment: the decision rendered by the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal
Chamber of Commerce in Calcutta, India, as affirmed by the High Court of Judicature of Calcutta.
ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce,
as affirmed by the High Court of Judicature of Calcutta, is enforceable in the Philippines.
HELD: No. We reverse the appealed decision upon the ground that it is based upon a clear mistake of law
and its enforcement will give rise to a patent injustice.
It is true that under the provisions of Section 50 of Rule 39, Rules of Court, a judgment for a sum of
money rendered by a foreign court "is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title", but when suit for its enforcement is brought in a Philippine
court, said judgment "may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact"
Upon the facts of record, We are constrained to hold that the decision sought to be enforced was
rendered upon a "clear mistake of law" and because of that it makes appellant — an innocent party —
suffer the consequences of the default or breach of contract committed by appellee.
There is no question at all that appellee was guilty of a breach of contract when it failed to deliver one-
hundred fifty-four Hessian bales which, according to the contract entered into with appellant, should have
been delivered to the latter in the months of July, August and September, all of the year 1949. It is
equally clear beyond doubt that had these one-hundred fifty-four bales been delivered in accordance with
the contract aforesaid, the increase in the export tax due upon them would not have been imposed
because said increased export tax became effective only on October 1, 1949.
To avoid its liability for the aforesaid increase in the export tax, appellee claims that appellant should be
held liable therefor on the strength of its letter of September 29, 1949 asking appellee to ship the
shortage. This argument is unavailing because it is not only illogical but contrary to known principles of
fairness and justice. When appellant demanded that appellee deliver the shortage of 154 bales it did
nothing more than to demand that to which it was entitled as a matter of right. The breach of contract
committed by appellee gave appellant, under the law and even under general principles of fairness, the
right to rescind the contract or to ask for its specific performance, in either case with right to demand
damages. Part of the damages appellant was clearly entitled to recover from appellee growing out of the
latter's breach of the contract consists precisely of the amount of the increase decreed in the export tax
due on the shortage — which, because of appellee's fault, had to be delivered after the effectivity of the
increased export tax.
To the extent, therefore, that the decisions of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of
Commerce and of the High Court of Judicature of Calcutta fail to apply to the facts of this case
fundamental principles of contract, the same may be impeached, as they have been sufficiently
impeached by appellant, on the ground of "clear mistake of law".
2nd case.. same thing, mabuang kog apas..
[G.R. No. 103493. June 19, 1997]
PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORPORATION vs. CA
FACTS: Private respondent Ventura O. Ducat obtained separate loans from petitioners Ayala International
Finance Limited (hereafter called AYALA) and Philsec Investment Corporation (hereafter called PHILSEC)
in the sum of US$2,500,000.00, secured by shares of stock owned by Ducat with a market value of
P14,088,995.00. In order to facilitate the payment of the loans, private respondent 1488, Inc., through its
president, private respondent Drago Daic, assumed Ducat’s obligation under an Agreement, , whereby
1488, Inc. executed a Warranty Deed with Vendor’s Lien by which it sold to petitioner Athona Holdings,
N.V. (hereafter called ATHONA) a parcel of land in Harris County, Texas, U.S.A., for US$2,807,209.02,
while PHILSEC and AYALA extended a loan to ATHONA in the amount of US$2,500,000.00 as initial
payment of the purchase price. The balance of US$307,209.02 was to be paid by means of a promissory
note executed by ATHONA in favor of 1488, Inc. Subsequently, upon their receipt of the US$2,500,000.00
from 1488, Inc., PHILSEC and AYALA released Ducat from his indebtedness and delivered to 1488, Inc. all
the shares of stock in their possession belonging to Ducat.

As ATHONA failed to pay the interest on the balance of US$307,209.02, the entire amount covered by the
note became due and demandable. Accordingly, private respondent 1488, Inc. sued petitioners PHILSEC,
AYALA, and ATHONA in the United States for payment of the balance of US$307,209.02 and for damages
for breach of contract and for fraud allegedly perpetrated by petitioners in misrepresenting the
marketability of the shares of stock delivered to 1488, Inc. under the Agreement.
While Civil Case No. H-86-440 was pending in the United States, petitioners filed a complaint “For Sum of
Money with Damages and Writ of Preliminary Attachment” against private respondents in the Regional
Trial Court of Makati, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 16563.
Private respondent Ducat moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 16563 on the grounds of (1) litis pendentia, vis-
a-vis Civil Action No. H-86-440 filed by 1488, Inc. and Daic in the U.S.
ISSUE: the principal issue to be resolved in this case is whether Civil Case No. 16536 in Makati is barred
by the judgment of the U.S. court.
HELD: Private respondents contend that for a foreign judgment to be pleaded as res judicata, a judgment
admitting the foreign decision is not necessary. On the other hand, petitioners argue that the foreign
judgment cannot be given the effect of res judicata without giving them an opportunity to impeach it on
grounds stated in Rule 39, §50 of the Rules of Court, to wit: “want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.”
Petitioners’ contention is meritorious. While this Court has given the effect of res judicata to foreign
judgments in several cases, it was after the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample
opportunity to repel them on grounds allowed under the law. It is not necessary for this purpose to
initiate a separate action or proceeding for enforcement of the foreign judgment. 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.[9] Rule 39, §50 provides:
SEC. 50. Effect of foreign judgments. - The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing;
(b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as between
the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment may be repelled by
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or
fact.
In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioners were given the opportunity to challenge the judgment
of the U.S. court as basis for declaring it res judicata or conclusive of the rights of private respondents.
The proceedings in the trial court were summary. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court was even
furnished copies of the pleadings in the U.S. court or apprised of the evidence presented thereat, to
assure a proper determination of whether the issues then being litigated in the U.S. court were exactly the
issues raised in this case such that the judgment that might be rendered would constitute res judicata.
It was error therefore for the Court of Appeals to summarily rule that petitioners’ action is barred by the
principle of res judicata. Petitioners in fact questioned the jurisdiction of the U.S. court over their persons,
but their claim was brushed aside by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
December 17, 2013
There’s a discussion there why or what are the reasons why foreign judgments are recognized and
enforced here in the Philippines same reasons why foreign laws are applied here in the Philippines. And
there’s this case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. CA and PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY, the
facts are as follows, Oil and Natural Gas Commission is a foreign corporation owned and controlled by
the Government of India while PCC s a private corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the Philippines. Oil and Nat Gas Comm and PCC entered into an agreement whereby PCC would deliver oil
well cement to the former. PCC failed to deliver the oil well cement. Negotiations ensued between the

parties and they agreed that PCC will replace the oil well cement with Class “G” cement cost. However,
upon inspection, the Class “G” cement did not conform to the Oil and Nat Gas Comm’s specifications. The
latter then informed PCC that it was referring its claim to an arbitrator pursuant to Clause 16 of their
contract. The venue for arbitration is at India. The arbitrator resolved the dispute in ONGC’s favor. To
enable ONGC to execute the award in its favor, it filed a Petition before the Court of India. The India
Court adapted the decision of the arbitrator because of the failure of the PCC to pay its filing fees of its
objections to the award. Despite notice and several demands, PCC refused to pay the amount adjudged
by the India court. Accordingly, the ONGC filed a complaint with the RTC of Surigao City for the
enforcement of the judgment of the foreign court. PCC moved to dismiss the complaint. PCC alleged that
the judgment of the Indian Court cannot be enforced here bec. it is not a valid judgment in accordance
with our rules on judgments which is, a judgment must state the law and the facts on which it was based.
So the issue here is can the Phil. court enforce the judgment of the Indian Court which the PCC claims
that it is not a valid judgment in accordance with our rules. Yes. It can be enforced in the Philippines,
because procedural rules of the litigation is determined by the internal law of the forum, hence, it must be
the procedure of India which should be applied and if the rules of India allows a judgment to be rendered
as valid due to nonpayment of docket fees, then it is a valid judgment which can be enforced. So, why did
I ask you to recite this case in relation to what we’ve discussed, in the beginning of the class? what did
we discuss? The reasons why foreign judgments are enforced and recognized here (the same reasons
why foreign laws are applied) and we looked at the theories on why the foreign laws are applied. The
theory of Comity. Connect that to this case. What is that one exception to the theory of comity? Apply the
foreign law which is procedural in character. In other words, what law determines whether or not the
procedural matters are properly followed? The law of the forum. Here, we have a judgment rendered by
the Indian Court and therefore it is the Indian law on procedure and if for the Indian law a memorandum
decision is valid, then so be it, we will not even question. So if a judgment is valid in India in accordance
with their rules, we will not question that, okay? That’s it.
Of course the case of Northwest Orient is also connected to that topic. What did the SC say in that case
in relation to that particular issue? SC said that a foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in
the country from which it comes until the contrary is shown. So like what we mentioned last time, how do
you attack a foreign judgment? You attack it by applying Rule 39, Section 48—that it was rendered
without jurisdiction, want of notice, collision, extrinsic fraud, and mistake of law or fact. But the form of
the judgment, we have nothing to do with. okay?
It is also proper to presume the legality of the proceedings and the giving of due notice therein.
Consequently, the party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of
its validity. Meaning, the party challenging the foreign judgment shall have the duty to demonstrate the
invalidity of the foreign judgment. So, as long as you have proof of the judgment, that is already a
presumption that it is a valid judgment. So, in relation to our first requisite on proof, we apply the
discussion in Northwest vs CA.
Also in the case of Asiavest, SC said that a foreign judgment against a person rendered by court having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest. How do you repel the judgment? By evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. So here (Asiavest case) a Hong Kong
court rendered judgment against Herras, and this judgment is presumed to be valid.
We have a new case, not really new, this case is more related to recognition case but it talks about the
proof required. What kind of proof do we need in order to enforce or recognize a foreign judgment.
Corpus vs Sto. Tomas. The facts of the case are as follows: Gerbert was a former Filipino Citizen, who
acquired Canadian citizenship through Naturalization on 2000. In 2005, he married a Filipina named
Daisylyn. However, due to marital problems, Gerbert went to Canada and filed a petition for divorce. The
Canada court granted the petition of Gerbert and issued a divorce decree in Dec. 2005. Two year after,
Gerbert now wanted to marry another Filipina in the Philippines, so he went to Pasig Civil Registry Office
to register the Canadian divorce decree in the previous marriage certificate. It was registered in the Civil
registry but the NSO said that there must first a judicial recognition of such divorce decree. So, gerbert
went to the RTC and filed a petition for the judicial recognition of the divorce decree and/or declaration of
the marriage as dissolved. So the issue here is whether or not gerbert was able to properly provide the
proof needed for the recognition of this foreign divorce. SC said that he failed to show proof. Sc said that
the divorce decree granted to an alien can be recognized in the Philippines if it is valid to the law of his
nationality and that there must be an attached foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as
facts under our rules of court., together with the copies of the alien’s applicable national law to show the
effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. Under Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,
the petitioner must show proof either by:

(1) Official publications or
(2) Copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents.
If the copies of official records are not kept in the Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a
certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in
the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
In the case at bar, Gerbert attached to his petition a copy of the divorce decree, as well as the required
certificates proving its authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the Canadian law (his national law) on
divorce which would show the effect of such decree in his person or his status.
Maam suarez: Yes. If a judgment is sought to be recognized here in our country like a judgment of
divorce, it is not enough to show proof of the foreign judgment, that would be very easy because
definitely, gerbert has the official publication or the official judgment of the court itself, the original. So
how would you know that the country where the divorce decree was issued was based on the laws of
such country?!? So you have to prove also that foreign law. So, in this case, Gerbert did not attach the
official publication of the Canadian law on divorce or the copies thereof attested and authenticated, and
therefore, the SC said REMAND the case to the RTC, wherein Gerbert would be allowed to present the
necessary proof of the foreign law and the opposing party may be given a chance to oppose the foreign
judgment and overcome Gerbert’s presumptive evidence (which is the judgment/decree) of a right by
proving want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collision, fraud, clear mistake of law or fact.
And lastly, SC said that the recognition that the RTC may extend to the Canadian divorce decree does not,
by itself, authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil registry. A petition for recognition of a foreign
judgment is not the proper proceeding, contemplated under the Rules of Court, for the cancellation of
entries in the civil registry. The petitioner has to file another petition under Rule 108 for the court to issue
an order to the local registry to cancel that entry of marriage. It is a different proceeding, it has nothing to
do with recognition. Okay?
But what is the effect of recognition? Why is it that precaution must be taken to ensure conformity with
our laws before recognition is made? Because a foreign judgment, once recognized, will have the effect of
res judicata between the parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
The SC also said that In fact, more than the principle of comity that is served by the practice of reciprocal
recognition of foreign judgments between nations, the res judicata effect of the foreign judgments of
divorce serves as the deeper basis for extending judicial recognition and for considering the alien spouse
bound by its terms.
So that is the effect of recognition by the court.
Now, the next one is very easy. The following judgments cannot be enforced in the Philippines as they fall
to the exceptions of the application of foreign law (exceptions to comity): Criminal cases, tax cases and
strict administrative proceedings.
Now, as to this issue on jurisdiction, by whose standard will the competency of jurisdiction over the case
in question be adjudged? and the answer is the foreign court which rendered must be a court of
competent jurisdiction in an international sense. we already discussed this pala.
So there is this case, an old case, Boudard versus Tait 67 Phils. 170, this is in relation to want of
notice. Mrs. boudard sued Tait in Manila, CFI Manila, on the basis of a judgment rendered by the CFI of
Hanoi, French Indo-China, in favor Mrs. B for payment of 56K. So this is an enforcement case. The Hanoi
court rendered a judgment in favor of Mrs. B because Tait was declared in default, he failed to appear
during the trial. So, the CFI Manila, where the enforcement case was filed, dismissed the case on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Hanoi Court because Tait was not a resident of French
Indo-China at that time. Issue: Can the CFI Manila enforce the judgment of the Hanoi Court? SC said NO.
Judicial proceedings in a foreign country, regarding payment of money, are only effective against a party
if summons is duly served on him within such foreign country before the proceedings. This is an action in
personam. Hence, the SC said there was lack of jurisdiction. THE Hnaoi Court did not acquire jurisdiction
over Tait and therefore, such judgment cannot be enforced here in the Philippines.

And we have another case, Buchanan vs. Rucker, 9 East 192 (1808), a british case, this is in Trinidad
and Tobago. A Tobago court issued a judgment in personam against Rucker, who is a non-resident of
Tobago. How was he served a copy of the summons? He was served with process by nailing a copy of the
summons at the entrance (door) of the courthouse, in accordance with the Tobago law. Now, an action
for recognition of the judgment of the Tobago court was brought in England. It was proven that Rucker
was absent from Tobago at the time of the proceedings. Issue: Should the English court recognize the
judgment of the Tobago Court. The SC of England said, NO. A state may empower a court to pass
judgment upon absentees after substituting some form of notice for personal service of a writ of such
judgment though binding in the country where pronounced has no international validity. Even assuming
that Tobago law had expressly enacted that the person who had never been present in Tobago should be
bound by the form of service wherein the summons were nailed or served at the entrance of the
courthouse, the question was how can that be obligatory upon the subjects (citizens) of other countries?
Can Tobago pass a law to bind the rights of the whole world? Obviously not. So this is an example of
different jurisdictions and different ways of attacking a judgment. This is a British case and the British
court said, how can they impose it on us?. Well, that is their process there. So, meaning, they have
different rules from us. So their own conflict rules for them, the grounds for granting judgment
recognition in England are determined by English law.
Let’s go to the cases on fraud. We have Philippine Aluminum vs. FASGI. In this case, Philippine
Aluminum (PAWI), a Philippine corporation, had a distributorship agreement with FASGI, corporation
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, USA, for the purchase,
importation and distributorship in the United States of aluminum wheels manufactured by PAWI. When
the latter delivered the aluminum wheels in the US, FASGI found the goods to be defective and in non-
compliance with stated requirements in the contract. Thus FASGI filed an action for breach of contract
and recovery of damages against PAWI in US District Court of California. During the pendency of the case,
the parties entered into a settlement, entitled "Transaction", where it was stipulated that PAWI would
accept the return of not less than 8,100 wheels after restoring to FASGI the purchase price via four (4)
irrevocable letters of credit. However, PAWI defaulted in its obligation prompting FASGI to pursue its
complaint for damages against PAWI before the California district court. In the interim, the parties,
resolved to enter into another arrangement, this time entitled "Supplemental Settlement Agreement,". The
agreement basically provides that PAWI shall return the purchase price in installment and conversely,
FASGI shall return the wheel in installment. Eventually, FASGI sought the enforcement of the agreement
and it received a favorable judgment from the California court. PAWI is then ordered to pay an equivalent
of P252k plus damages but FASGI was not ordered to return the remaining wheels. PAWI was not able to
comply with the court order in the US. So FASGI filed a complaint for the enforcement of a foreign
judgment with RTC-Makati. RTC ruled against FASGI on the ground that the foreign judgment is tainted
with fraud because FASGI was not ordered to return the remaining wheels (unjust enrichment) and that
PAWI’s American lawyer entered into the agreements without the consent of PAWI. Issue: Whether or not
the foreign judgment may be enforced here in the Philippines. SC said YES. The judgment is valid. 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 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.
In this case, PAWI was very well represented in the California court. PAWI’s insistence that its American
lawyer colluded with FASGI; that he entered into the compromise agreement without PAWI’s authority is
belied by the fact that PAWI initially complied with the agreement. It did not disclaim the agreement. It
sent two installments (though belatedly) but failed to comply on the rest. It cannot now aver that the
agreement is without its authority. If PAWI were indeed hoodwinked by its lawyer who purportedly acted
in collusion with FASGI, it should have aptly raised the issue before the forum which issued the judgment
in line with the principle of international comity that a court of another jurisdiction should refrain, as a
matter of propriety and fairness, from so assuming the power of passing judgment on the correctness of
the application of law and the evaluation of the facts of the judgment issued by another tribunal.
Fraud, to hinder the enforcement within this 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 case or defense. In fine, intrinsic fraud, that is,

fraud which goes to the very existence of the cause of action - such as fraud in obtaining the consent to a
contract - is deemed already adjudged, and it, therefore, cannot militate against the recognition or
enforcement of the foreign judgment.
Maam Suarez: So in other words, the SC was saying that, if you have questions regarding the judgment,
you go first to the court which rendered the judgment and question the judgment. Do not go to another
court. Even though the foreign judgment is being repelled on the ground of collision and fraud, the issue
on collision should have been raised when the foreign court rendered the judgment, because perhaps, just
like our courts, once a judgment is rendered, the judgment can be questioned (by appeal), why was the
judgment allowed to reach finality? Why did it not bring up that the parties colluded with each other there
in the California court? As to fraud, one can only repel a foreign judgment if one was deprived from
making a full and complete defense or fraud in obtaining jurisdiction over the defendant.IN this case, the
SC said that the alleged fraud committed was merely intrinsic and therefore, not a ground for repelling a
foreign judgment. These allegations (collision and fraud) must be proven. Okay?
The next requisite for enforcement or recognition of a foreign judgment, it must not contradict a sound
and established public policy of the forum.
And the case assigned here is Querubin vs. Querubin 87 Phil.124. We have here Sylvestre Querubin.
I don’t understand how some people could be so mean. ( he and his wife Margaret had a daughter. You
guess the name of the daughter. Querubina Querubin ( ( ( (poor daughter. :D ) Anyway, Sylvestre filed for
divorce in LA. They’re both Filipinos but maybe he acquired US citizenship. and then he was granted the
custody of the daughter Querubina by the LA court, because the mother, Margaret, was living with
another man already at the time the divorce was filed. After the divorce, Margaret married her living
partner and sought modification of the order of the LA court in regard of the custody of Querubina. So the
LA court agreed that they will share custody. So, Sylvestre and Querubina however, were already in the
Philippines at that time. So Margaret’s lawyer sought a writ of habeas corpus in the local CFI on the
strength of the order of the LA court that Margaret and Sylvestre can now share custody of Querubina.
The CFI refused the writ. Issue: Should CFI have granted the writ. The SC said, NO. The SC refused to
overturn the CFI decision to not recognize the foreign judgment (where the LA court changed its ruling,
allowing the sharing of custody) because giving custody of a minor child to a mother who was the guilty
party in the divorce proceeding is contrary to our public policy. So that was the reason for repelling that
foreign judgment. A minor child should not be given in custody to a mother who was the guilty party in a
divorce proceeding. Again, this is a very old case. Okay. So that’s an example of the fourth requisite.
Now. The fifth requisite: The foreign judgment must be res judicata in the State that rendered it. So, you
already know the requisites of res judicata—the judgment must be final; the court which rendered the
judgment had the jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; judgment must be on the merits;
and there must be identity of the parties, subject matter and cause of action. Of course, the number 4
requisite, that is moot because if you are enforcing a foreign judgment, that involves the same parties,
the same cause of action, and same subject matter. Okay? except that, with reference to cause of action,
the real cause of action is now the recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment. It’s just that it has
the same issues, subject, etc. okay? So that is what it means noh, that the judgment must be res judicata,
meaning all of those requisites for application of res judicata are present. And therefore, they overlap
each other because when we talk about jurisdiction, definitely this is already contained here in the fourth
requisite. okay?
So we go to the question, what is the degree of conclusiveness of a foreign judgment that is entitled to
enforcement or recognition? In relation to that, we have to go back to our Rule 39, Section 48 of the
Rules of Court.
(a) Judgment or final order is upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order, is conclusive upon the
title to the thing, and (actions in rem or quasi in rem) eg. marriage
(b) Judgment or final order is against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a
right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title. (personam)
And therefore in the case of Mijares vs. Ranada, the SC here discussed a lot of issues, from the
beginning as to what is the cause of action in an enforcement case plus the docket fees. The payment of
docket fees was also tackled here in a sense that, is the petitioner in the petition for enforcement of
judgment obliged to pay the docket fees in relation to the amount of the judgment which was 1 Billion
dollars? The SC here said, NO. The fee of 410php is sufficient. That the complaint to enforce the foreign
judgment is one capable of pecuniary estimation but at the same time it is also an action based on

judgment against an estate thus placing it beyond the ambit of Section 7(a) Rule 141 which insists that
the docket fees be based on the value of the whatever. What provision then governs the proper
computation of filing fees for this particular case? It is Section 7 (b)(3) Rule 141, involving as it does other
actions not involving property. It does not involve a property, just an enforcement of a foreign judgment.
You don’t have to look at the value or at the judgment itself and the amount of the award given by the
foreign court. And here, the SC also recognized that with respect to the effect of the foreign judgment,
this is a judgment against the person (the estate of the Marcoses). The SC said, the rules of comity, utility
and convenience of nations have established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of
foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain
conditions that may vary in different countries. Okay? So, this is an action in personam, and therefore the
foreign judgment is presumptive, and not conclusive, of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title. So presumptive as to the right of the victims to collect from
the estate of the Marcoses. How do you repel this? How do you subject this judgment to impeachment?
again go back to the third requisite. okay? so the opportunity to challenge a foreign judgment is to attack
it based on just that, noh. And of course, our other exceptions to comity. Okay? so we are done with
enforcement.
December 18, 2013
NATURE AND COMPOSITION OF CONFLICT RULES
A conflict rule, according to Paras, is a provision found in conflicts of law found in a country’s own law
which governs factual situations possessed of a foreign element.
So every state has conflict rules. It is part of the national law of every state.
Let us distinguish a purely internal rule from a conflict rule.
It is a purely internal if it sets forth a right or exacts obligations. Remember our discussion on causes of
action under Rule 2 - right, obligation, violation, damage. Rule on adverse possession. Article 2176 on
culpa aquiliana. That’s a purely internal rule - every person who causes damage to another shall be liable
to another for the damage caused.
A conflicts rule is one that anticipates a foreign element or determines the applicable law in a conflict
situation.
A purely internal law directly answers a given problem as its legal effects are immediately indicated. Like
article 2180, an employer is directly and primarily responsible for the act of the employee.
A conflict rule, however merely indirectly responds by indicating whether an internal or foreign law is
applied. It does not answer the problem. It does not solve the issue.
A purely internal rule authorizes, commands or prohibits a certain code of conduct. Just like the RPC.
A conflict rule decides only which law or jurisdiction who will give the final solution to a problem.
So the most popular conflict rule is Article 16.
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is
situated.
It does not answer the problem as to who owns the property or who has the right to the property, dba? It
just says that if there is an issue regarding the property and there is foreign element, it is subject to the
law of the country where the property is situated. So it answers the question what law will apply. If the
property is found in the Philippines then obviously Article 16 says that Philippine law that will apply.
Another example is Article 17.

Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by
the laws of the country in which they are executed.
So we are talking about formalities. What law shall govern? The law of the place where the contract, will
or the public instrument was executed. It does not solve the issue, it merely states what county’s law will
apply.
There are two kinds of conflict rules.
1. One-sided rule is one which indicates when Philippine internal law will apply. Article 15 is an example.
Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of
persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
So it specifically states that Philippine internal law will apply with respect to family rights and duties, or to
the status, condition and legal capacity of persons.
2. All-sided rule is one which indicates when foreign law is to be applied. So, foreign law or whatever
law, both sides of the story. Like Article 16.2 which talks about intestate and testamentary successions.
Art. 16 par 2. 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 wherein said property may be
found.
So, it can be Philippine law or it can be foreign law. Depends on the nationality of the one who died.
Composition or Parts of Conflict Rule.
1. the factual situation – the set of facts presenting a conflicts problem.
2. the point of contact or the connecting factor - part of the rule which states the law of the
country with which the factual situation is most intimately connected.
Example: Let us go back to Article 16.1
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where
it is situated.
The factual situation is - real property as well as personal property.
The point of contact is - the law of the country where it is situated.
Example: Article 1039.
Art. 1039. The capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.
The factual situation is - capacity to succeed. Who are capacitated to be the heirs of the decedent.
The point of contact is - law of the nation of the decedent. His national law, not the national law of one of
the heirs.
Now, if you read the book of Fr. Aquino, he actually has 3 essential components of a conflict rule.
1. Subposition of fact – same as factual situation. This is a the _ to certain situations or social relations
that the law considers significant. It is because that one conflict rule can be applied to a multiplicity of
situations, just like Article 15. There are so many situations - family rights and duties, or to the status,
condition and legal capacity.

And even Article 16.2 – intestate and testamentary succession, successional rights, intrinsic validity.
2. Point of contact – that circumstance which establishes a connection between a case at hand and the
laws of a foreign jurisdiction. Such as nationality, domicile, or situs of the goods.
3. Juridical consequence - the application of the law, whether domestic or foreign.
So, if you notice the different authors have different ways of presenting this particular subject. This is not
composed of hard and fast laws. We have a lot of theories and opinions given by certain authors.
Let us go to this example.
We have here X, a Filipino national, domiciled in the US when he died. He left a will that he made in
France. The will stated that he left property in China.
So obviously, this problem has a foreign element. How many factual situations are present?
- Capacity of the testator
- w/n the will is valid
Anyway, let us go to the decisive points of contact na lang in the example given by Fr. Aquino.
1. his nationality is Filipino

2. domiciled in US
3. place where the contract is made is France
4. place where the property is situated is China
So, a lot of conflict rules can apply.
1. place where the contract is made is France - Article 17.1 with respect to formal validity of the will.
2. place where the property is situated is China – Article 16.1
Now, in the case of Saudia vs CA, the SC enumerated the test factor or the points of contact.
So you see ha, according to Paras the point of contact is the law of the country with which the factual
situation is most intimately connected. But, Aquino says point of contact is the circumstance that
establishes a connection between a case at hand and the laws of a foreign jurisdiction such as nationality,
domicile or situs, which is what we looked at here (example). Again, different authors have different
definitions of point of contact. The SC is following, I guess, the Aquino definition of a point of contact, in
the case of Saudia vs CA.
XXX 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;

intentionis;
(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.
XXX (Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA)
So, in other words, when you look at point of contact, rarely do we say Philippine law or rarely do we say
the law of France. You can say that is the point of contact if you are talking about, let us say Article 1753.
Article 1753 which provides that the law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall
govern the liability of the common carrier in case of loss, destruction or deterioration. The point of contact
is the law of the country of destination. The factual situation is the loss, destruction or deterioration of
goods while being transported. So it is more on the law of the country-of-what.
The only conflict rule which says Philippine law is Article 15. In article 15 the point of contact is the law of
the Philippines or the national law of the parties.
So that’s how we determine the point of contact - nationality, domicile, law of country where the contract
was entered into which is lex loci celebrationis, lex loci contractus, lex loci intentionis or the law of the
intention of the parties.
When it comes to the exam, as to this topic, you just have to divide the conflict rule. What is the factual
situation, what is the point of contact. Just look at the enumeration of the made by the SC in Saudia. Like
intentionis, so that is the point of contact. It could also be a provision in a contract. This would fall in lex
loci intetionis.
- END -


Conflicts of Law Exam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflicts of Law Exam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflicts of Law – First Exam

From the lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

NOVEMBER 13, 2013

NATURE, DEFINITION AND SCOPE

So the elements of the definition.

Let us distinguish. Private international law from public international law.

Private International Law Public International Law

Municipal in Character International in character

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 1 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Private International Law Public International Law

Between Persons Of interest only to states

SOURCES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS:

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 2 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 3 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

We will go back to this case when we reach choice of law.

3 ways of service of summons:

1. Personal- Rule 14 section 6

Exceptions. Courts can acquire jurisdiction over his person if:

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 4 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

WHAT THE COURT OF THE FORUM MUST DO

The court has 2 actions:

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 5 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

This is just the overview of jurisdiction.

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 6 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

November 19, 2013

Let’s see if you actually read your textbook.

Examples of issues. State to state

1. Conflict of laws is part of the municipal law of a state.

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 7 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

the common carrier in case of loss, destruction or deterioration.

2. There is a directive to courts and administrative agencies

3. There is a legal problem involving a foreign element

4. There is either an application or a non-application of a foreign law or foreign laws

How is conflict of laws observed?

We already discussed distinctions and the sources.

So that’s the sources. Let’s go to jurisdiction

Dacasin vs Dacasin February 15, 2005

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 8 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

ISSUE: WON the RTC may take cognizance of Herald’s suit

We have different topics here. The easiest of course is procedural.

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 9 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Won margarita was validly served summons

Banco du Brazil vs CA.

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 10 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

November 20, 2013

… Jurisdiction in a case where there is a foreign element. (way microphone diri)

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 11 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 12 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 13 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

November 26, 2013

We have distinguished Private International Law and Public IL.

According to 2 schools of Thoughts:

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 14 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

1. Dualist – the majority opinion; the 2 subjects are worlds apart

Q: according to Paras why is this use as the title of this book?

Forum Non Convenience

Communication Materials vs. CA

ISSUE: w/n RTC was an inconvenient forum?

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 15 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 16 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

November 27, 2013

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Hao, Page 17 4 MANRESA 2013-2014