CONFLICT OF LAWS (A.Y. 2011-2012, 2nd Semester) Atty. Jun Pilares WEEK 1 1.

Definition: Conflict of Laws; Private International Law 2. Purpose; Theories 3. Conflict of Laws v. Public International Law 4. Elements a. Part of municipal law b. Directive to courts/ administrative agencies c. Foreign element d. Application or non-application of foreign law 5. Foreign element a. Read: Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals, et.al., G.R. No. 122191, 8 October 1998 b. Read: Laurel v. Garcia, G.R. No. 92013, 25 July 1990 6. Resolution of Conflicts Problems; General Framework a. Phases involved in resolving conflicts problems i. Read: Kazuhiro Hasegawa and Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. v. Kitamura, G.R. No. 149177, 23 November 2007

b. Jurisdiction i. Venue v. jurisdiction 1. Read: Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,et.al., G.R. No. 111685, 20 August 2001 c. Choice of Law/ Characterization i. Doctrine of Qualification 1. Read: Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals, et.al., supra ii. Considerations of Public Policy 1. Read: Cadalin, et.al., v. POEA, et.al., G.R. No. 104776, 5 December 1994 iii. Doctrine of Processual Presumption 1. Read: Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. v. CA and C.F. Sharp & Company, Inc., G.R. No. 112573, 9 February 1995

d. Enforcement of Judgment i. Read: Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Court of Appeals and Pacific Cement Company, G.R. No. 114323, 23 July 1998 7. Some (Domestic) Sources of Conflicts of Law Rules

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

Constitution (Arts. IV and V, Sec. 1) Civil Code (Arts. 14, 15, 16, 17, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 829, 1039, 1319, and 1753 Family Code of the Philippines (Arts. 10, 21, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 80, 96, 184 and 187) Revised Penal Code (Art. 2) Corporation Code (Sec. 133) Rules of Court (Rule 14; Rule 39, Sec. 48; Rule 131, Sec. 3(n); Rule 132, Sec. 25) WEEK 2

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE A. Distinction between jurisdiction and venue B. Rules on Venue a. Stipulations as to venue i. Read: Rules of Court, Rule 4 ii. Read: Unimasters Conglomeration, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119657, 7 February 1997 iii. Sweet Line, Inc. v. Teves, G.R. No. L-37750, 19 May 1978 b. Special rules on libel suits i. Read: R.A. 4363 ii. Read: Time, Inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-28882, 31 May 1971 II. RULES ON JURISDICTION A. Jurisdiction over the person, over the res and over the subject matter a. Actions in personam; actions in rem; actions quasi in rem i. Read: Villareal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107314, 17 September 1998 ii. Actions in rem v. real actions B. Even if a person is not within the jurisdiction of a state, if he has property in there, the court may exercise jurisdiction.Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714 (1878): C. Service of summons as requirement of procedural due process a. Jurisdictional issues under conflicts of law cases as a question of due process i. Read: International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) b. Governing law lex fori i. Read: Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and C.F. Sharp & Co., Inc., supra D. Foreign corporations (Read: Sec. 123, Corporation Code of the Philippines) a. Doing business i. Read: Sec. 133, Corporation Code of the Philippines; Rule 1, Sec. 1 (f) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Foreign Investments Act (definition of doing business) ii. Read: European Resources and Technologies, Inc. v. Ingenieuburo Birkham, G.R. No. 159586, 26 July 2004 iii. Read: Agilent Technologies Singapore (Pte) Ltd. V. Integrated Silicon Technology, Philippine Corp., G.R. No. 154618, 14 April 2004 b. Rules on service of summons on foreign corporations i. Read: Secs. 127 and 128, Corporation Code of the Philippines; Sec. 12, Rule 14, Rules of Court; A.M. No. 11-3-6 (New Rules on Service of Summons on Foreign Juridical Entities)

WEEK 3 I. Forum Non Conveniens 1. First Phil. International Bank et.al. v. Court of Appeals, et.al., G.R. No. 115849, 24 January 1996 2. Raytheon International, Inc. v. Rouzie, G.R. No. 162894, 26 February 2008 3. The Manila Hotel Corp. and Manila Hotel Intl Ltd v. NLRC et al, G.R. No. 120077, 13 October 2000 4. Communications Materials and Design, Inc. et.al. v. Court of Appeals, et.al., G.R. No. 102223, 22 August 1996 5. Hasegawa et.al. v. Kitamura (supra) 6. Bank of America NT&SA et.al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120135, 31 March 2003 7. Philsec Investment orporation et.al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103493, 19 June 1997 8. Puyat v. Zabarte, G.R. No. 141536, 26 February 2001 9. Pioneer Concrete Phils. Inc., et.al., v. Todaro, G.R. No. 154830, 8 June 2007 10. Wing On Co. v. Syyap, 64 O.G. 8311 (1964) 11. In re: Union Carbide, 634 F. Supp. 842 (1986) WEEK 4 I. Basic Theory: Foreign law given effect only with consent of the forum: a. Brownell v. Sun Life Assurance Co., Inc. 95 Phil. 228 (1954); b. Cadalin v. POEA, ., G.R. No. 104776, 5 December 1994 c. Bank of America v. American Realty Corp., 321 SCRA 659 (1999) 1. Consent by forum a.Express consent local law adopting a foreign law; reference to a foreign law; Treaty b.Implied consent Read: Sison v. Board of Accountancy, 85 Phil. 276 (1949) 2. Points of contact a. Nationality; domicile; residence; place of sojour b. Place of establishment/ incorporation of juridical person; flag of a ship c. Situs of a thing d. Place where act was done e. Place where act is intended to take effect f. Intention of contracting parties g. Place where proceedings are instituted II. Characterization/ Doctrine of Qualification; Issue of Characterization Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA G.R. No. 122191, 8 October 1998 1.Subject Matter Characterization Gibbs v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 59 Phil. 293 (1933)

2. Substantive law v. Procedural law; Borrowing Statute Read: Cadalin v. POEA, supra) 3. Other Theories on Characterization a. Center of Gravity Auten v. Auten, 308 N.Y. 155 (1954) b. State-interest analysis Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N.Y. 2d 473 (1963) c. Cavers principle III. Renvoi Reference to internal law of foreign country; Need to avoid endless chain of references in applying renvoi a. Aznar v. Garcia, 7 SCRA 95 (1963); b. Testate Estate of Amos Bellis, et.al. v. Bellis, G.R. No.L-23678, 6 June 1967) IV. Application of Foreign Law a. Proof of Foreign Law; No judicial notice of foreign law

b. Doctrine of Processual Presumption: i. Board of Commissioners v. Gatchalian, 197 SCRA 858 (1991) ii. In re: Union Carbide, 634 F. Supp. 842 (1986)

WEEKS 5-7 SPECIFIC AREAS OF DISCUSSION ON CHOICE OF LAW ISSUES A. PERSONAL STATUS, LEGAL PERSONALITY AND CAPACITY 1. Relevant legal provisions - Articles 15, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42, Civil Code 2. Cases a. Recto v. Harden, 100 Phil. 427 (1959) b. Barnuevo v. Fuster, 29 Phil. 606 (1913) c. Insular Government v. , 13 Phil. 236 (1909) B. NATIONALITY, RESIDENCE AND DOMICILE 1. Relevant legal provisions - Art. IV and Art. V, Sec. 1, 1987 Philippine Constitution - R.A. 9225 2. Cases a.Talaroc v. Uy, 92 Phil. 52 (1952)

b. Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727 (1996) c. Kookooritchkin v. Sol Gen, 81 Phil. 435 (1948) d. Cordora v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176947, 19 February 2009 e. Caasi v. CA, 191 SCRA 229 (1990) f. Uytengsu v. Republic of the Philippines, 95 Phil. 890 (1954) g. Marcos v. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300 (1995) h. Caraballo v. COMELEC, 4 SCRA 1055 (1962) ***How does conflict of laws treat stateless person? C. FAMILY LAW 1. Legal provisions: a. Civil Code, Arts. 15, 16(2nd par) b. Family Code, Arts. 10, 21, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 80, 96, 184, 187 2. Cases a. Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, 30 June 1989. b. Roehr v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 142820, 20 June 2003 c. Cang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105308, 25 September 1998 d. Bayot v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155635, 7 November 2008 e. Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, 11 August 2010 f. Recio v. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, 2 October 2001 D. SUCCESSION 1 Legal provisions: a. Civil Code, Arts. 16, 17, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 829, 1039 2. Cases a. Gibbs v. Government of the Philippine Islands, supra b. Bellis v. Bellis, supra

E. PROPERTY 1. Legal provisions a. Civil Code, Arts. 16, 1753 2. Cases

a. Laurel v. Garcia, et.al., supra b. Bellis v. Bellis, supra c. Chua Guan v. SamahagMagsasaka, G.R. No. 42091, 2 November 1935 d. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Company v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 46720, 28 June 1940 e. Beam, et.al. v. Yatco, G.R. No. 48122, 29 October 1948 f. National Development Company v. Court of Appeals, et.al., G.R. No. L-49407, 19 August 1988

F. CONTRACTS

1. Legal provisions: Civil Code, Arts. 17, 1306; See also the Warsaw Convention 2. Cases a. Government v. Frank, supra b. Cadalin v. POEA, supra c. K.K. Shell Sekiyu Osaka Hatsubaisho v. CA, 188 SCRA 145 (1990) d. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v.Ople, 190 SCRA 90 (1990) e. Bagong Filipino Overseas Corp. v. NLRC, 135 SCRA 278 (1985) f. Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 299 SCRA 608 (1998) G. TORTS AND CRIMES 1. Legal provisions: Civil Code, Arts. 19 and 2176; Revised Penal Code, Art. 2 a. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA, supra b. Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. V. CA, 342 SCRA 213 (2000) c. Loucks v. Standards Oil Co., 224 N.Y. 99; N.E. 198 (1913) d. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987 e. Worldwide Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) f. People v. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729 (1922 g. Navida, et.al. v. Dizon, et.al., G.R. No. 125078, 30 May 2011 ***Read also about: Alien Tort Statute of the United States (see Marcos cases involving the Alien Tort Statute); Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (U.S.) H. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT 1.Legal Provisions: Rules of Court, Rule 39, Sec. 48 (compare with Sec. 47), Rule 131, Sec. 3 2. Cases: 1.Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. v. CA, 241 SCRA 192 (1995) 2.Boudard v. Tait, 67 Phil. 170 (1939) 3.Querubin v. Querubin, 87 Phil. 124 (1950) 4.Philippine Aluminum Wheels v. GASGI Enterprises, Inc., 342 SCRA 722 (2000) 5.Hang Lung Bank, Ltd. v. Saulog, 201 SCRA 137 (1991) 6.Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining, Inc., 93 Phil. 1034 (1953) 7.Philsec Investment, Inc. v. CA, 274 SCRA 102 (1997) 8.Nagarmull v. Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar, 33 SCRA 46 (1970) 3. Also, please read about the following: 1. Basic principle relating to the enforceability of a foreign judgment 2. Difference between recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment 3. Requisites for the enforcement of a foreign judgment 2. Cases