I.

Introduction to Conflict of Laws

Conflict of Laws is 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 a foreign law or foreign laws.

Although Conflict of Laws is sometimes thought of as part of International Law because of the

presence of a foreign element in a given problem, it is not international in character but it is part of the

municipal law of each state. By Municipal Law in Conflict of Laws is meant the internal or local

system of law, so each state also has its own conflict of laws. 1

Private International Law is that branch of International law which regulates the comity of states

in giving effect in one to the municipal laws of another relating private persons or concerns the rights

of persons within the territory and dominion of one state or nation, by reason of acts, private or public

done within the dominion of another and which is based on the broad general principle that one

country will respect and give effect to the laws of another so far as can be done consistently with its

own interests.

Part I. Preliminary Considerations

A. Foreign state immunity and succession:

It was held in the case of Co Kim Cham vs Valdez Tan Keh that if the proceedings pending in

the different courts of the Islands prior to the Japanese military occupation had been continued during

the Japanese military administration, the Philippine Executive Commission, and the so called

Republic of the Philippines, it stands to reason that the same courts, which had become reestablished

and conceived of as having in continued existence upon the reoccupation and liberation of the

Philippines by virtue of the principle of postliminy, 2 may continue the proceedings in cases then

pending in said courts, without necessity of enacting a law conferring jurisdiction upon them to

continue said proceedings. As Taylor graphically points out in speaking of said principles a state or

1
Diy, Handbook of Conflict of Laws
22
Hall, International Law, 7th Ed., p. 516
other governmental entity, upon the removal of a foreign military force, resumes its old place with its

right and duties substantially unimpaired Such political resurrection is the result of a law analogous

to that which enables elastic bodies to regain their original shape upon removal of the external force

and subject to the same exception in case of absolute crushing of the whole fibre and content. 3 A legal

maxim states that: law once established continues until changed by some competent legislative

power, It is not changed merely by change of sovereignty. There is no need for a proclamation

proclaiming that laws and courts are expressly continued, it is generally implied. 4

B. Provisions of the Civil Code and Rules of Court:

Article 14 of the Civil Code: Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be

obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public

international law and to treaty stipulations. 5

Article 15 of the Civil Code: 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. 6

Article 16 of the Civil Code: Real Property as well as personal property is subject to the law of

the country where it is situated.

However, intestate and testamentary succession, 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.7

Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court: Effect of foreign judgments or final orders - The effect of

a foreign or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or

final order is as follows:

33
Taylor, International Public Law, p. 615
4
Co Kim Cham vs Valdez Tan Keh, G.R. No. L-5 (1945)
5
Article 14, Civil Code of the Philippines
6
Article 15, Civil Code of the Philippines

7
Article 16, Civil Code of the Philippines
 (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. 8

In the case of Northwest Orient Airlines vs. Court of Appeals wherein the court decided in the

Affirmative that a Japanese court can acquire jurisdiction over 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. Under Section 14

of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, which 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) of 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.
If the foreign corporation has designated an agent to receive summons, the designation is

exclusive, and service of summons is without force and gives the court no jurisdiction unless made

upon him.
However, 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. Whenever service of process is so made, the government office or official

served shall transmit by mail a copy of the summons or other legal process to the corporation at its

home or principal office. The sending of such copy is a necessary part of the service. Nowhere in its

pleadings did private respondent profess to having had a resident agent authorized to receive court

processed in Japan. This silence could only mean, or least create an impression, that it had none.

8
Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
Hence, service on the designated government official or on any of the private respondents officers or

agents in Japan could be availed of.

Accordingly, the extraterritorial service of summons on it by the Japanese Court was valid not

only under the processual presumption but also because of the presumption of regularity of

performance of official duty.9

The case of Bank of America vs. American Realty Corporation reiterated that a foreign law

must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. Thus, if the foreign law involved is not properly

pleaded and proved , our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic

or internal law. This is what we refer to as the doctrine of processual presumption. In the instant case,

assuming arguendo that the English Law on the matter were properly pleaded and proved in

accordance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and the jurisprudence laid down in Yao

Kee et.al. vs Sy-Gonzales, said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied. Thus, when the

foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum the

said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied. 10

The case of Mijares vs. Ranada ruled that Petitioners complaint may have been lodged

against and estate, but it is clearly based on a judgment, the Final Judgment of the US District Court.

The provision does not make any distinction between a local judgment and a foreign judgment, and

where the law does not distinguish, we shall not distinguish. 11

C. Rules on Extradition

P.D. 1069: Prescribing The Procedure For The Extradition Of Persons Who Have Committed

Crimes In A Foreign Country

Extradition

9
Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112573 (1995)
10
Bank of America vs. American Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 133876 (1999)
11
Mijares vs Ranada, G.R. No. 139325 (2005)
 is an intrusion into the territorial integrity of the host state and a delimitation of the sovereign

power of the state within its territory.12

In Government of the United States of America vs Puruganan, It is significant to note that

Section 6 of PD 1069, our Extradition Law, uses the word "immediate" to qualify the arrest of the

accused. This qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of the

arrest warrant. Hearing entails sending notices to the opposing parties, receiving facts and arguments

from them, and giving them time to prepare and present such facts and arguments. Arrest subsequent

to a hearing can no longer be considered "immediate." The law could not have intended the word as a

mere superfluity but, on the whole, as a means of imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the

determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.

By using the phrase "if it appears," the law further conveys that accuracy is not as important as

speed at such early stage. The trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive determination to

ferret out the true and actual situation, immediately upon the filing of the petition. From the knowledge

and the material then available to it, the court is expected merely to get a good first impression -- a

prima facie finding -- sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and

detention of the accused.13

Section 2 (a) of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) defines Extradition as the

removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign

authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with any criminal

investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or

criminal law of the requesting state or government. 14

However, In Government of Hong Kong vs. Olalia, it is held that Extradition is not a trial to

determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extradite. Nor is it a full-blown civil action, but one

12
Wright vs. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 341 (1994)
13
Govt of the United States of America vs Puruganan, G.R. No. 148571 (2002)
14
P.D. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law), Section 2(a)
that is merely administrative in character. Its object is to prevent the escape of a person accused or

convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial or

punishment. It does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines

should diminish a potential extraditees rights to life, liberty and due process. More so, where these

rights are guaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also by international conventions, to which the

Philippines is a party. We should not, therefore, deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail,

provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met. 15

In the case of Cuevas vs. Muoz wherein the request for provisional arrest for provisional

arrest of respondent and its accompanying documents is valid despite lack of authentication. There is

no requirement for the authentication of a request for provisional arrest and its accompanying

documents. The enumeration in the provision of RP-Hong Kong Extradition Agreement does not

specify that these documents must be authenticated, Article 9, of the same Extradition Agreement

makes authentication a requisite for admission in evidence of any document accompanying a request

for surrender or extradition. In other words, authentication is required for the request for surrender or

extradition but not for the request for provisional arrest. 16

D. Suits in rem / in personam

In Ong Huan Tin, Change of name under our own law is a special proceeding to establish

the status of a person involving his relations with others, that is, his legal position in, or with regard to,

the rest of the community. The petition therefor is directed against all. It is in rem, that under Section 3

of Rule 103, publication of the petition is required. 17 However, it should be noted that in Montalban vs.

Maximo, There should be no doubt, therefore, that in suits in personam, courts have jurisdiction over

residents temporarily out of the country. 18

The court held in Rayray vs. Chae Kyung Lee wherein the prevailing rule is, accordingly, that a

court has jurisdiction over the res, in an action for annulment of marriage, provided, at least, one of

15
Government of Hong Kong vs Olalia, G.R. No. 153675 (2007)
16
Cuevas vs Muoz, G.R. No. 140520 (2000)
17
In the Matter of the Petition to Change Name of Ong Huan Tin to Teresita Tan Ong Huan Tin vs. Republic of the
Philippines, G.R. No. L-20997 (1967)
18
Montalban vs. Maximo, G.R. No. L-22997 (1968)
the parties is domiciled in, or a national of, the forum. Since plaintiff is a Filipino, domiciled in the

Philippines, it follows that the lower court had jurisdiction over the res, in addition to its jurisdiction

over the subject-matter and the parties. In other words, it could validly inquire into the legality of the

marriage between the parties herein. 19

Part II. Conflict of Laws Proper

A. Forum Non Conveniens

Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

A forum may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdictionis authorized by law

on the ground that the forum is inconvenient or the ends of justice would be best served by trial in

another forum or the controversy may be more suitably tried elsewhere.

In Raytheon vs. Rouzie, 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 courts desistance. 20 However, the court cannot sustain insistence of

petitioner in Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. vs. M/V Lok Maheshwari, et. al. 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

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

19
Rayray vs Chae Kyung Lee, G.R. No. 18176 (1966)
20
Raytheon International, Inc. vs. Rouzie, G.R. No. 162894 (2008)
the injured and the placeof contract; India is the law of the flag and the allegiance of the defendant

ship-owner.21
Elements of Forum Non Conveniens
The elements of Forum Non Conveniens was cited in the case of Continental

Micronesia, Inc. vs Basso, in which under the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens, a Philippine court

in a conflict-of-laws case may assume jurisdiction 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. 22

The doctrine of forum non-conveniens, in Bank of America, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, literally

meaning the forum is inconvenient, emerged in private international law to deter the practice of

global forum shopping, that is to prevent non-resident litigants from choosing the forum or place

wherein to bring their suit for malicious reasons, such as to secure procedural advantages, to annoy

and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more friendly venue. Under

this doctrine, a court, in conflicts of law 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.23 In Keihin Narasaki Corporation, et. al. v. Crystal Navigation, et. al., considering their legal

and factual settings, the cases under consideration can be dismissed on the principle of non-

conveniens, even assuming arguendo that respondent trial court has jurisdiction over the subject

matter and the parties.24

B. Family Relations/Law of Nationality

In Llorente vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held:

In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., we held that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article

15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorce, the

same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. In the same case, the

21
Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. vs M/V Lok Maheshwari, et. al., G.R. No. 155014 (2005)
22
Continental Micronesia, Inc. vs Basso, G.R. No. 178382-83 (2015)
23
Bank of America, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120135 (2003)
24
Keihin Narasaki Corporation, et. al. vs. Crystal Navigation, et. al., G.R. Nos. 90232-33 (1991)
Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national

law.25 However, in Del Socorro vs Van Wilsen, in view of respondents failure to prove the national law

of the Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of processual presumption shall govern. Under this

doctrine, if the foreign aw involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that

the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. Thus, since the law of the

Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not been properly pleaded and proved in the

instant case, it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of

parents to support their children and penalizing the noncompliance therewith. 26 The could ruled in

Fujiki v. Marinay that the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of

Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign

judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country.

For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of marriage where one of

the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to prove the foreign judgment as

a fact under the Rules of Court. 27 International Law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or

processual presumption comes into play, i.e., where a foreign law is not pleaded, is not proven, the

presumption is that foreign law is the same as Philippine Law. 28 The court ruled in the affirmative that

the national law of the deceased should be applied in determining the successional rights of his heirs,

Under Article 16 of the Civil Code which states that successional rights are determined by the national

law of the country where the deceased is a citizen. Hence, the internal law of California since it was

ruled that Edward Christensen is a citizen of California. 29

C. Contracts: Lex loci celebrationis / Intrinsic validity / Lex loci contractus / Lex loci

intentions / Lex loci rei sitae

Definition of Terms:
Lex loci celebrationis law of the place where the contract is made.
25
Llorente vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124371 (2000)
26
Del Socorro, et. al. vs Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707 (2014)
27
Fujiki v. Marinay, G.R. No. 196049 (2013)
28
Orion Savings Bank v. Suzuki, G.R. No. 205487 (2014)
29
In the Matter of the Testate Estate of Edward E. Christensen, deceased. Aznar, Executor v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-16749
(1963)
Lex loci contractus law of the place where the contract was made or law of the place where the

contract is to be governed (place of performance) which may or may not be the same as that of the

place where it is situated.

Lex loci rei sitae - law of the place where the thing or subject matter is situated; the title to realty or

question of real estate law can be affected only by the law of the place where it is situated.

The Supreme Court emphasized in Hasegawa v. Kitamura, that the contention that Japanese

laws should apply is premature. In conflicts cases, there are three phases and each next phase

commences when one is settled, to wit:

Jurisdiction Where should litigation be initiated? Court must have jurisdiction over the subject

matter, the parties, the issues, the property, the res. Also 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.

Choice of Law Which law will the court apply? Once a local court takes cognizance, it does not

mean that the local laws must automatically apply. The court must determine which substantive law

when applied to the merits will be fair to both parties.

Recognition and Enforcement of Judgment Where can the resulting judgment be enforced? 30

The ruled followed by most legal systems, however, is that the intrinsic validity of a contract

must be governed by the lex contractus or proper law of the contract. This is the law voluntarily

agreed upon by the parties (the lex loci voluntatis) or the law intended by them either expressly or

implicitly (the lex loci intentionis).31 Thus, when a law or a provision of law is null because it is

30
Hasegawa and Nippon Engineering Consultant Co., Ltd. v. Kitamura, G.R. No. 149177,23 (2007)
31
Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation v. Eusebio Construction, Inc., et. al., G.R. No. 140047
(2004)
inconsistent with the Constitution, the nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or reenactment of the

same or a similar law or provision.32

In Edi-Staffbuilders International, Inc. v. NLRC and Gran, the employment contract signed by

Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor Laws will govern matters not provided for in the contract

(e.g. specific causes for termination, termination preocedures, etc.). Being the law intended by the

parties (lex loci intentiones) to apply to the contract, Saudi Labor Laws should govern all matters

relating to the termination of the employment of Gran. 33 On the other hand, in Orion Savings Bank v.

Suzuki, the court ruled that the Korean Law should not be applied. It is a universal principle that real

or immovable property is exclusively subject to the laws of the country or state where it is located.

Thus, all matters concerning the title and disposition of real property are determined by what is known

as the lex loci rei sitae, which can alone prescribe the mode by which a title can pass from one person

to another, or by which an interest therein can be gained or lost. 34

C. Tort Liability

In Dilweg vs Phillips, the court held that:

It is thus evident that, contrary to the conclusion reached by the court below, it is not

indispensable for a foreigner to establish a residence, nor need he be physically present in a state of

which he is not a resident or citizen in order that he may initiate or maintain a personal action against

a resident or citizen of that ether state for rights of action arising in, or for violations of laws committed

within, the territorial jurisdiction of that other state. In this jurisdiction, no general law has come to our

knowledge or notice which restricts the right of nonresident aliens to sue in our courts. It is not

disputed that plaintiff's causes of action arose in, and that the defendants are within, our territorial

jurisdiction. It is conceded by both parties that the law under which the instant case falls is silent on

32
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139 (2014)
33
Edi-Staffbuilders International, Inc. v. NLRC and Gran, G.R. No. 145587 (2007)
34
Orion Savings Bank v. Suzuki, G.R. No. 205487 (2014)
the matter of the right of an Alien to sue in our courts. On the other hand the particular law evidently

availed of by the plaintiff in filing his complaint is Article 33 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which

provides:

"In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages entirely separate

and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall

proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only preponderance of evidence."

The above-quoted provision of law does not make any distinction as to whether the "injured

party." who may maintain an action for damages based on defamation, is a Filipino citizen or resident

or an alien.35

In the case of Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA, the Supreme Court had the occasion to apply the

most significant relationship rule. In the said case the court laid down the following factors which are

to be taken into account:

place where the injury occurred;

place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;

the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties;

and

place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. 36

E. Public Policy

In Cadalin et. al. v. POEA et. al., it applied the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976, which

provides for greater benefits than those stipulated in the overseas-employment contracts of the

claimants. It was of the belief that where the laws of the host country are more favorable and

beneficial to the workers, then the laws of the host country shall form part of the overseas employmet

35
Dilweg v. Phillips, G.R. No. L-19596 (1964)
36
Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122191 (1998)
contract.37 The Court ruled in Keihin Narasaki Corporation et. al. v. Crystal Navigation, et. al., that

jurisdiction cannot be subject of agreement or compromise; the action was one in rem and had been

correctly filed in the Philippines where the res was located, and the defendants were estopped from

questioning the Court's jurisdiction since they had moved to discharge the attachments and posted

counter bonds for that purpose. 38 A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in

the sense that it may be viewed either as procedural or substantive, depending on the

characterization given such a law.39 The Supreme Court in LWV Construction Corporation v. Dupo

held that, what will apply on this particular case is not Art. 13 of the Saudi Labor Law but Art. 291 of

the Philippine Labor Code which provides for a 3 year prescription period for all money claims from

employee-employer relationship. A foreign procedural law shall not be applied even if the action is

based upon a foreign substantive law. The Court did not apply the Art. 48 of the Code of Civil

Procedure which provides that if the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose, the

action is barred, it shall also be barred in the Philippine island because the Court, in light of the

provisions of the 1987 Constitution, Art. 48 cannot be applied ex proprio vigore insofar as it ordains

the application of the provision of the Saudi Law. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign

claim obnoxious to the forums public policy. To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri

Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question would contravene the public policy on the

protection to labor.

The Court therefore leaned on the constitutional provision of on protection to labor rather that

adopting the provision of the foreign law.40

37
Cadalin et. al. v. POEA et. al., G.R. No. L-104776 (1994)
38
Keihin Narasaki Corporation et. al. v. Crystal Navigation et. al., G.R. Nos. 90232-33 (1991)
39
Ibid.
40
LWV Construction Corporation v. Dupo, G.R. No. 172342 (2009)