PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION
marriage?
Q: What is the Basic Cause for Conflict Problems?
A: Conflict problems come into being through
VARIANCE in the municipal laws of the countries
involved. (pg. 6)
Q: Why conflict of laws is observed?
A: Because of the following reasons: (1) part of
municipal law of the state; and (2) fear of an
individual for municipal sanctions. (pg. 9)
Q: Discuss generality and territoriality in the concept
of international customs as direct source for conflict
of law.
A: Under the territoriality principle, the country where
the crime has been committed has jurisdiction to try
the offense that has been committed. While under
the generality rule, criminal laws of a country bind
both the citizens and the aliens who are in the said
country or territory. (pg. 19)
(Note: What are the exceptions of the generality
rule?)
A:
a) Principles of public international law (e.g.
immunities granted to diplomats)
b) Treaties (e.g. Philippines-United States Military
Bases Agreement) (pg. 20)
Q: In cases of conflict between treaty and
fundamental law, which would prevail?
A: From the viewpoint of the world, the treaty ought
to prevail to avoid international embarrassment.
While, from the viewpoint of the state, treaty may be
declared unconstitutional. However, said decision of
the forum court might not have any international
effect.
JURISDICTION
Q: An American, not residing in the PH, intimidated a
Filipino woman into marrying him. The woman filed
a case in RTC for annulment and damages. Since her
husband could not be found, service of summons
was made by publication.
a) Does RTC have jurisdiction to annul the
b) Does RTC have jurisdiction to award
damages?
A:
a) Yes. Jurisdiction over the person of the
plaintiff for the simple reason that she filed
the complaint before it and Jurisdiction over
the res or the annulment itself. The
proceedings partakes an action in rem
because it involves the personal status of the
plaintiff.
b) No. An award for damages is a judgment in
personam, enforceable only against the party
concerned. There could no valid judgment in
personam because the service of summons
was done through publication.
(NOTE: Suppose the defendant has properties in the
PH, would the answer be the same?)
A: Yes, since the court never acquired jurisdiction over
his person. However, as an exception, if the court had
previously acquired jurisdiction over the property
itself, the court may validly render the property liable.
(pgs. 31-32)
Q: A Filipino married an American woman without
deciding their matrimonial property status.
Assuming that in America, the rule is complete
separation of property, who will be the owner of the
husbands earnings?
A: The property should be common to the spouses
because the husband is a Filipino.
Q: An American married a Filipino woman and
bought a house in the PH.
a) Are Americans allowed to own a house in the
PH?
b) Should the house be considered as separate
or conjugal?
A:
a) Yes. Generally, a US citizen may not purchase
PH land, however, they may acquire a house
because while a house is real property, it is
 not land, so same may be validly purchases by
an alien.
b) Separate property because the husband,
being an American citizen, the matrimonial
property regime in his country must be
followed.
(NOTE: The matrimonial property regime is governed
by the national law of the husband. (Art. 80 of FC);
However, if the husband decided to alienate, donate
or encumber the house to a friend, the formalities
should be governed by the PH law because now it
refers to title or ownership of a real property (Art. 16,
par. 1 of CC); Further, if the husband wishes to donate
it to his wife, said action shall be Void under Art. 87 of
the FC)
Q: When is a foreign judgment or contract contrary
to our public policy?
A: PH have a conflict rule on the matter – any foreign
law that contravenes is clearly violative
Q: May joint wills, which are executed and perfected
abroad, be successfully probated in the PH?
A: No because they are contrary to Philippine public
policy. (Art. 819 of the CC)
Q: An American dies, leaving properties in the PH. In
his will he gave nothing to his children. Can his will
be given in the PH?
A: Yes, our law in Art. 16, par. 2 of CC substantially
provides that the national law of the decedent shall
govern in matters of successional rights.
Q: May a decree of absolute divorce obtained abroad
by Filipinos today be given effect in the PH?
A: Yes, Manalo case.
(NOTE: Answer in the book is no because it
contravenes with our establish public policy)
Q: May an American wife who is unfaithful obtain
exclusive parental authority to her child in the PH
considering that the courts of California decided an
interlocutory order on her favour?
A: No.
1. Preference in authority is given to the father,
not to the mother
2. Guilty spouse generally loses parental
authority
3. An interlocutory order is not final hence court
will not take judicial notice thereof.
(NOTE: If the child is below 7 years old, the CC
provided that he/she shall not be separated with
his/her mother EXCEPT for compelling reasons)
Q: Two Filipino cousins got married in California,
where marriage is considered valid. May the
marriage be recognized the PH?
A: No, it contravenes with the PH public policy for
being incestuous.
Q: If a Filipino step-brother marries his Filipino step-
sister in California, will their marriage be recognized
in the PH?
A: Yes. Under the doctrine of Inclusio unios, exclusio
est alterius (“what the law does not include, it
excludes”), marriage between Filipino step-brother
and step-sister is neither bigamous nor polygamous
nor incestuous. As such, since it did not fall under the
enumerated exceptions, it should come under the
general rule.
Q: A contract of loan entered in the foreign country
at 16% per annum, considered usual and lawful in
said country, should the stipulation be enforceable in
our courts?
A: Yes, since the parties intended to follow the law
prevailing in that place (lex loci intentionis)
Q: Should a Japanese negotiable instrument adhere
to our own local requirement for negotiability?
A: No. The negotiability of the paper should be tested
by the criterion imposed under Japanese laws. (right
embodied in the instrument)
Q: Are the standards of morality immutable?
A: Objectively, the standards of morality can never
change. However, subjectively, it can change because
what may appear as pleasant and natural to one state
may be regarded as abhorrent to another.
Q: In contract with a penalty clause, would said
“penalty clause” enforceable in our own courts?
A: Yes, because in the international sense, the penalty
clause should not be considered a penalty.
Q: Are penalties in divorce cases enforceable in our
courts?
A: It depends. If it is directed only to the guilty spouse,
the prohibition is Penal and thus cannot be enforced.
However, if it is directed against both guilty and
innocent spouse, it is merely regarded as an
expression of the policy of the forum and thus
enforceable.
Q: In country X, all contracts entered by parties
below 25 are considered void. Now, then, if two
Filipinos, sojourning in country X, enter into a
contract despite the fact that they are only 24 years
old, should our tribunal give effect to such contract?
A: It depends. Intrinsic validity of a contract is
governed by lex loci intentionis or the law of which
the parties intended. In the case the bar, if the parties
intended to have their transaction governed by
country X, then our tribunal should not give effect to
such contract. However, if what was on the mind of
the parties was to be subjected by the PH law, said
contract shall be given effect in our tribunal.
(NOTE: Supposing that the issue was whether or not
the parties have capacity to enter a contract, would
your answer be the same?)
A: No. Capacity to enter a contract is governed the
national laws of the party. Here, it would definite that
the our tribunal may give effect to the said contract
because both parties are Filipino citizens, as such,
their capacity to enter into a contract is 18 years old,
which is the age of majority in the PH.
Q: Is a swiss citizen, who filed a former suit against
another through his wife, outside the jurisdiction of
the lower court?
A: No. Where a swiss citizen, residing in Switzerland,
was served with summons through his representative
and attorney-in-fact in prior civil case which
apparently filed in the Rizal CFI at his behest, the
lower court had acquired jurisdiction over the non-
resident husband by means of the said service of
summons. As his wife had authority to sue in his
behalf, she was also empowered to represent him in
suits filed against him. (William Gemperle vs. Helen
Schenker; JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON)
Q: Does the lower court have jurisdiction over
recovery of sums of money of dividends worth
P71,379.90?
A: Yes. The adjudication of title to certain shares of
stocks and the granting of affirmative reliefs is well
within the general jurisdiction of CFI Manila. The
nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought
is conferred by the sovereign authority which
organizes the court. (Idonah Perkins vs. Roxas;
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER)
NOTE:
Exclusive Jurisdiction of the RTC
a. Cases incapable of pecuniary estimation
b. Title or possession of real property or any interest
therein where the assessed value EXCEEDS
P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 for Metro Manila EXCEPT
unlawful detainer or forcible entry
c. Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where claims
exceeds P100,000.00 or P200,000.00 in Metro Manila
d. Matters of probate, both testate and intestate,
where gross value of claim exceeds P100,000 or
P200,000.00 in Metro Manila
e. All actions involving contract of marriage and
marital relations
f. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
court or tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial
g. Cases falling within Juvenile and Domestic Relations
and Courts of Agrarian Relations
h. All other cases which demand exceeds P100,000.00
or P200,000.00 in Metro Manila
Q: May the Oregon Court refuse to take jurisdiction
of a case granting that none of the causes of action
arose in Oregon, and material witness resides and
records of the policy are in New York and Germany?
A: Yes. Even if the Oregon Court has jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties through service of
summons, it may refuse to take cognizance of the
case. Under the doctrine of forum non-conveniens,
courts have repeatedly refused, in their discretion, to
entertain suits where both parties are non-resident of
the forum and the courts of which the parties are
resident or citizens are open and competent to take
jurisdiction of the controversies. (Heine vs. New York
Insurance Co.; WAYS OF DEALING WITH A CONFLICT
PROBLEM – DISMISS DUE TO DOCTRINE OF FORUM
NON-CONVENIENS;)
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Q: Is presentation of a book (West Virginia Code) w/
certificate signed by the Director of the national
library sufficient for PH courts to take judicial notice
of laws from a foreign jurisdiction?
A: No. Laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove
themselves in the courts of the Philippine Islands.
Such laws must be proved as facts before PH courts
are allowed to take Judicial Notices.
In the case at bar, there was: (1) No proof that the
book is published under the authority of West
Virginia; (2) No attestation and certification of officer
or deputy having the custody of the original; and (3)
No proof that the said laws was still in force. (Fleumer
vs. Hix)
NOTE:
Doctrine of Processual Presumption
- when a foreign law is not duly presented and proven
before a forum court, such law shall be presumed to
be exactly the same as the law of the forum.
Q: May a court, in the same case but different
hearings, take judicial Notice of a foreign law where
said law was introduced as evidence only during
previous hearings and not on subsequent hearings?
A: Yes. The pertinent laws of Nevada can be taken
judicial notice by the court even without proof
because such law was already offered as evidence by
appellant’s counsel and was admitted by the court
during previous hearings of the case. In addition, the
appellants did not dispute the provisions of the law.
(Philippine Trust Co. vs. Bohonan)
Q: What law should govern when the facts of the
case clearly indicates that the land was acquired,
situated, and registered in the PH. However, the laws
of the country, w/c the deceased is a citizen and
resident states that “community property of
spouses, when wife predeceases her husband,
belongs absolutely to the latter?
A: The Philippine law. Article 16 of the New Civil Code
states that, “Real property as well as personal
property is subject to the law of the country where it
is stipulated”. (Gibbs vs. Government of the Phil;
modified by Art. 16 of the New Civil Code)
Q: What is the rule in terms of laws on prescription
of actions?
A: As a general rule, foreign procedural laws will not
be applied in the forum. A law on prescription,
however, is sui generis, in the sense that it may be
viewed either as procedural or substantive, depending
on the characterization given such a law.
Nonetheless, the characterization of a statute into a
procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant
when the country of the forum has a “borrowing
statute”. Said statute directs the state of the forum to
apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending
claims based on a foreign law.
Yet, the courts of the forum will not enforce any
foreign claim obnoxious to the forum’s public policy.
In the case at bar, to enforce the one-year
prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 would
contravene the public policy on the protection of
labor. (Cadalin vs. POEA)
(NOTE: If face with the same problem, the modern
trend is to use the “totality approach”, which is to first
get the law intended by the parties before
characterizing EXCEPT: (a) contravene public policy of
the forum; and (b) the subject matter governs
property located in the PH)
Q: When does a law on prescription becomes
procedural and when does it becomes substantial?
A: It is substantive if it forbids obligation or directs
newly created liability.
It is procedural when it forbids enforcement or bar
legal remedy.
Q: What law should govern the successional rights of
a deceased who is a citizen of California and was the court, such as when they are well and generally
domiciled in the PH during his death? known or they have been actually ruled upon in other
cases before it and none of the parties concerned
A: California Law. Art. 16 of the New Civil Code
claimed otherwise. (Phil. Commercial and Industrial
provides that the law that would govern with regard
Bank vs. Escolin)
to successional rights is the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration.
Q: May children born in China from a Chinese father
However, the laws of California have prescribed two
and Filipina mother are automatically denied entry
sets of laws for its citizen, one for residents therein
in the PH because the Insular Collector of Customs
and another for those domiciled in other jurisdiction.
believed that under and by authority of Chinese
California internal law should be enforced for its
Immigration law or certificate is needed before entry
citizens residing therein, and the conflict of law rules
to the PH?
should be enforced for the citizen domiciled abroad.
The latter law authorized the reference or return of A: No. There was no advice or allegation of any
the question of the law to the testator’s domicile. provisions of the Chinese law differentiating the
status of infant children born out of lawful wedlock. In
Thus, in the case at hand, the Philippine law shall be
the absence of anything to the contrary as to the
use. (Aznar vs. Garcia)
character of a foreign law, it will be presumed to be
NOTE: the same as the domestic law on the same subject.
By applying our law, the PH court, in principle, merely
Therefore, in the case at bar, such children have the
applied the national law of the decease.
right to look to their mother for their maintenance
and education, not only by the natural impulse of love
Q: A person who is a citizen and domiciliary of Texas and affection but also by the express mandate of the
executed in the PH a will, should the Texas or the PH law. (Lim vs. Collector of Customs)
law applies? Considering that the Texas laws has a
conflict of law w/c applies the Renvoi doctrine would
Q: In the absence of pleading and proving of a
it apply to this case?
foreign law, what is the rule?
A: The Texas law should apply. Art. 16, par 2 of the
A: When a foreign law is not pleaded and no evidence
New Civil Code renders applicable the national law of
has been presented as to said law it is presumed that
the decedent in intestate or testamentary
said foreign law is the same as the law of the forum.
successions, with regard to four items: (a) the order of
(Beam vs. Yatco; Miciano vs. Brimo; Collector of
succession; (b) the amount of successional right; (c)
Internal Revenue vs. Fisher)
the intrinsic validity of the provision of the wills and
(d) the capacity to succeed.
NATIONALITY
In the case at bar, however, the doctrine of renvoi is
not applicable since both the nationality and Q: Would a Chinese be allowed to apply for
domiciliary of the person is on Texas. (Bellis vs. Bellis) naturalization given that he did not previously
obtained a permission to renounce Chinese
Q: What are the instances in order for PH courts to
citizenship?
take to take judicial notice to foreign laws? Is there
an exception? A: Yes because insofar as our country is concerned it is
insignificant that he disobeyed the Chines law. What
A: Elementary is the rule that foreign laws may not be
matters is his compliance with our national law.
taken judicial notice without being proven like any
other fact in dispute between the parties in any (NOTE: Is he considered as a DUAL CITIZEN?)
proceeding. As an exception to the rule, is when the
said laws are already within the actual knowledge of
A: Strictly speaking, no. Insofar as the Philippines is
concerned, he is a Filipino. And insofar as China is
concerned, he is a Chinese.
However, from the viewpoint of a third state, he has a
dual or multiple citizenship.
(Note: Supposing that he made a will and died in
France, leaving properties in the PH. How should the
PH courts determine the successional rights of the
decedent?
A: Inasmuch as we regard him as a Filipino, there is no
doubt that in applying Art. 16, par.2 of the CC, the
Philippine law shall control the successional rights of
his estate.
(Note: Supposing, in similar case, instead of being a
Filipino, he was a Japanese under Japanese law and
was a Chinese under Chinese law with domicile
located in Japan. How should our courts rule?
A: Our courts should get the law of the nation of
which he was both a national and domiciliary. In this
case, the law of Japan.
(Note: Supposing that in similar case, instead of
being domiciled in Japan, he was domiciled in Italy
and died there. How should our courts rule?
A: Get first the Japanese and Chinese law on
succession and apply them as they are identical with
each other. Then, insofar as there would be conflict,
refer to the law of the domicile (Italy), to resolve the
conflict.
Q: What is the remedy of a citizen claiming to be a
Filipino but was compelled by administrative officers
of the Government to register as an alien pursuant
to rulings or opinions of superior administrative
officers?
A: Establish and prove that he is a Filipino and then
file a petition for injunction to prevent the officers
from compelling to register as an alien.
Q: An illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a
Filipino mother was registered in the Civil registry of
China. She filed a petition for correction of entry to
make her citizenship read as “Filipino”. Will the
petition prosper?
A: No. At first, it appears to be a mere petition for a
clerical correction but in substance, what is sought is a
judicial declaration of PH citizenship. Generally, no
person claiming to be a citizen can get a judicial
declaration of citizenship. Her proper remedy would
be to file for a petition for citizenship or
naturalization. (Case of Chua Tan Chuan; Republic vs.
Maddela)
Q: An illegitimate daughter of a Filipina mother was
registered as an alien. She claimed that she lost her
citizenship upon marriage to an alien. Her alien
husband died later. She petition for “judicial
repatriation”. Was there a proper repatriation?
A: No. There is no law authorizing judicial repatriation.
The woman in this instance only has to take the
necessary oath of allegiance and to register said oath
in the civil registry. (RA 9225)
Q: Does an alien woman marrying a Filipino becomes
ipso facto a Filipino citizen?
A: Yes. In Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Com. of Immigration, an
alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently
naturalized follows the Philippine citizenships of her
husband the moment he takes his oath as a Filipino
citizen, provided she does not suffer from any of the
disqualification under Sec. 4 of Revised Naturalization
Law. The decision in effect ruled that it is not
necessary for an alien citizen to prove in a judicial
proceeding that she possesses all the qualification in
Sec. 2 and none of the disqualifications under Sec. 4
of the said law. (Yap vs. Republic)
Q: Would a legitimate child who was born in the PH
of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, who
studied in China, be allowed re-entry in the PH?
A: Yes, because the child is a Filipino citizen. Upon his
father’s death his mother reacquired her PH
citizenship and because he was a minor, he should
follow his mother’s citizenship. Besides by the
doctrine of jus soli, he is a Filipino citizen. (Roa v.
Collector of Customs)
Q: What is the citizenship of a child of fathers who
are naturalized Filipino?
A:
1. Minor born before naturalization
 - If born in the PH, is a Filipino
- If born outside PH:
a. Dwelling in the PH at the time of
parents naturalization, is a Filipino
b. Dwelling outside, is a Filipino only
during his minority UNLESS resides
permanently in the PH when still a
minor.
2. Minor born after naturalization
- If born in PH, is a Filipino
- If born outside the PH, is a Filipino UNLESS
upon reaching age of majority he fails to
register himself as Filipino in the PH
consulate and the necessary oath.
3. If already of age, not a Filipino.
Q: At what moment must the mother be a citizen of
the PH?
A: At the time of her marriage to an alien. The reason
behind is to allow more children to avail the option of
election and to avoid the option of election to be
dependent with the nationality of the husband.
Q: Within what period after attaining the age of
majority must the child elect PH citizenship?
A: Within a reasonable period. What is reasonable is a
question of fact, depending upon the peculiar
circumstances of each case. In one case, three years
was considered reasonable and five years was
unreasonable.
Q: What is the nationality of the child before he
elects PH citizenship?
A: If the child is legitimate, the nationality of his
father. If he was illegitimate, he follows the citizenship
of his mother. (pg. 131)
Q: If a Filipino woman marries a foreigner, she gets
her husband’s nationality, if the laws of his husband
so provides. In such a case, she loses PH citizenship.
Now then, upon the husband’s death, does she
immediately acquire PH citizenship?
A: It depends.
If she became a widow before effectivity of CA 63
(Oct. 21, 1936), she immediately reacquire PH
citizenship with the exception that she, by outward or
external acts decided to continue being a citizen of
her husband’s country.
If she became a widow after CA 63, she has to
repatriate herself, otherwise she remains a foreigner.
(Talaroc vs. Uy)
(Note: Supposing that she repatriates herself, does
her repatriation carry with her the repatriation of
her minor child?)
A: No because the child never was a Filipino, it is
obvious that he cannot reacquire what he never had.
Q: Under the 1973 Constitution, who are deemed
natural born citizens of PH?
A: Those born of Filipino fathers and mothers with an
alien father were place on an equal footing. (Co vs.
Electoral Tribunal)
Q: What is meant by residency in political law vis-a-
vis in Civil Case?
A: In election cases, residence is used synonymously
with domicile. So that actual and physical presence is
not required and it is not lost without the intention of
abandoning the former and establishing a new one.
(Marcos vs COMELEC)
In naturalization, residence requires physical presence
coupled with the intent of staying permanently and
intention to return after a temporary absence.
(Uytengsu v Republic; Ujano v Republic; Velilla vs.
Posadas)
Q: What does lucrative income means? Are
allowances and bonuses included therein?
A: Lucrative income is where an appreciable margin of
income over expenses as to be able to provide for
adequate support in event of unemployment, sickness
or disability and thus avoid becoming an object of
charity.
It does not include allowances and bonuses which the
employer may or may not provide. (Yu Kian v.
Republic)
Q: Would the mere filing of a certificate of candidacy
automatically restore PH citizenship?
A: No. Restoration of PH citizenship requires an
express and unequivocal acts such as: (1)
naturalization; (2) Direct acts of congress; and (3)
Repatriation.
PH citizenship once renounced cannot be cheaply
recovered. (Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245)
(NOTE: Supposing that through repatriation, he
reacquired his citizenship, would he be allowed to
run for governor?
A: Yes. The law does not specify particular time or
date when a candidate must posses citizenship, unlike
that for residence and age. The prime issue of
citizenship should be reckoned from DATE OF
PROMULGATION, not the date of filing of COC. The SC
holds that his repatriation retroacted to the date of
the filing of his application. (Frivaldo vs. COMELEC,
257 SCRA 727)
Q: Who has the burden of proving that a person is
Disqualified from running for Governor?
A: The one who questions the qualification and
asserts disqualification has the burden of proving that
the person is disqualified. Otherwise, the presumption
remains that he is qualified. (Aznar vs. COMELEC)
Q: Is promulgation of a judgment granting
naturalization once given cannot be cancelled?
A: No. Cancellation can be done upon grounds or
conditions arising subsequent to the granting of the
certificate. In one case, for failure to conduct himself
in “proper and irreproachable manner during the
entire period of his residence in the PH”, an applicant
was stripped with his citizenship. A naturalization
proceeding is not a judicial adversarial proceeding,
the decision rendered therein does not constitute res
judicata. (Republic vs. Li Yao)
Q: Would a second oath of allegiance cure the defect
of taking an oath before an order of RTC became
final and executor?
A: No. The RTC already loses its jurisdiction over such
case. (Oh Hek How vs. Republic)
Q: Is it necessary for a person to prove that he is
stateless when the facts of the case clearly indicate
that petitioner was at war with his previous
government?
A: No. It is well known that modern dictatorship has
scattered throughout the world a large number of
stateless refugee. It would be technically fastidious to
require further evidence to the petitioner because he
has been at war with its previous government.
(Kookooritchkin vs. SolGen)
DOMICILE
Q: Does a possession of a green card constitute
abandonment of domicile in the PH?
A: Yes. Possession of a green card presupposes that a
person goes to the US not to merely visit but with the
intention to live there permanently.
Q: In the case of a foundling, suppose that the
parents of the child became known, what will be its
domicile of origin?
A: If legitimate, domicile of choice of the father. If
illegitimate, domicile of choice of the mother.
Q: What is the constructive domicile of a wife if the
marriage is valid, voidable, or void?
A: If valid, the domicile of choice of both husband and
wife.
If voidable and prior annulment, still the domicile of
choice of both husband and wife. However, if it is
voidable and after annulment, the woman ceases to
be a wife. She may freely select her own domicile of
choice.
If the marriage is void, the woman may freely select
her own domicile of choice.
Q: In cases of idiots, lunatics and insanes, what are
their domicile?
A: If minor, follow the rules of legitimate, illegitimate,
adopted and ward in constructive domicile.
If at the age of majority, follow the domicile of choice
of their guardian; and if none, their domicile of choice
before they become insane.
(NOTE: Lucid intervals)
Q: A person who was a resident of New Jersey
bought himself a large estate in Pennsylvania, where
he began to live with his wife and children. He,
however, maintained his house in New Jersey and
goes there once in a while. He expressly stated in his
will that he was a resident of New Jersey. What is
the domicile of the person?
A: Pennsylvania. As shown by his conduct,
notwithstanding his expressed desire.
(Note: Supposing the Pennsylvania court decided a
case, would it be binding on the courts of New
Jersey?)
A: No. For in New Jersey, the domicile of the deceased
was in New Jersey as evidenced by his intention to
return, notwithstanding his actual residence.
Q: Who are persons not allowed to acquire a new
domicile of choice?
A:
a. Infants, idiots, lunatics and the insane (w/o
prejudice to lucid intervals and guardians
choice)
b. Prisoner
c. Involuntary exiles
d. Soldiers
e. Diplomats and consuls
Q: Would an American staff sergeant in US Air Force
Clark base allowed to adopt in the PH?
A: No because of his assignment as staff sergeant is
temporary. Art 335 of the Civil Code disqualifies non-
resident alien to adopt in the PH. Residence in civil
code requires permanency or actual and physical
presence. (Caraballo v. Republic)
Q: May the rights taken by a wife to enter the PH
islands from her 2nd husband extend to her children
who was the children she had from her 1st husband?
A: No. It is settled in jurisprudence that the domicile
of the wife and children is that of the husband and
father. However, in the case at hand, the children
were not of her 2nd husband who she derived her right
to enter the PH islands. (Go Chen and Go Lek vs.
Collector)
Q: May a married woman acquire a residence
separate from her husband?
A: Yes. Generally, the domicile of the wife follows that
of her husband. The exception, however, are as
follows:
a. Husband lives abroad
b. Legally separated
c. Separation de facto
d. Husband forcibly rejects his wife
(NOTE: Supposing the wife was separated de facto,
would she be allowed to file an action for
preliminary injunction to prevent the alienation and
encumberance of conjugal property?
A: Yes. The rule that the husband is granted the power
to alienate and encumber the conjugal property
without the wife’s consent is only true as long as a
harmonious relationship exist between them. (De la
Vina vs. Villareal)
Q: Would a contract contracted by a wife, a US
citizen, to pay the service of a counsel for 20% in a
divorce case bounds the conjugal partnership?
Would such contract be governed by the Art. 1305,
1352 and 1409 of the Civil Code?
A: No. The wife merely bound herself and assumed
the personal obligation. The contract neither gives
any right to her lawyer, whatsoever, personal or real.
Further, inasmuch as both spouses were citizens of
the USA, their status and the dissolution thereof shall
be governed by their national law, by the law of the
USA which sanctions divorce. (Recto vs. Harden)
Q: Would a PH court have jurisdiction to try actions
for divorce over a person who’s a Spanish catholic
subject but is a resident of Manila and had his
domicile therein?
A: Yes. The CFI have power and jurisdiction to try
actions for divorce, for although the persons of the
litigants are Spanish Catholic subjects, they were
residents of Manila and had their domicile therein.
Therefore, CFI has jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the case. (Barnuevo v. Fuster; All actions involving
contract of marriage and marital relations)
Q: An American citizen who entered into a contract
with the PH government did not continue his
contract. It was alleged that when he entered the
contract, he was a minor under the PH law.
However, it was also disclosed that the contract was
entered into in USA in which he was considered as
an adult. Should he be liable for the breach of his
contract?
A: Yes. Capacity to enter into a contract is governed
by his national law. Thus, in the case at bar, he should
be considered as an adult and be held liable for the
said breach.
(NOTE: In Insular Government vs. Frank, the SC held
that the capacity of the parties to enter into a
contract is governed by lex loci celebrationis)
CHOICE IN LAW AFFECTING CORPORATION AND
OTHER JUDICIAL ENTITIES
Q: A corporation duly organized under the state of
New York with license to engage in the PH was asked
by one of their stockholders to permit examination
of books and records of business alleging that in the
PH, the Corp Code entitles him to do so. It is to be
noted that under their agreement only those
stockholders who owns 3% of shares may be allowed
to examine the affairs of the corporation. What law
should govern in the case?
A: Stock Corporation Law of New York or the law of
the place of incorporation. Thus, in the case at bar,
the stockholder is not allowed to examine the affairs
of the corporation. (M.E. Grey v. Insular Lumber Corp)
Q: When can a corporation be allowed to utilize,
exploit, and develop natural resources of the
Philippines?
A:
1. When a 60% of the capital of said corporation
is owned by a Filipino Citizen; or
2. 60% of the capital is owned by an American
Citizen (by virtue of Laurel-Langley Trade
Agreement) provided that they present a
proof that the various states of which the
stockholders are citizens grant reciprocity to
Filipino Citizens (Patling v. San Jose
Petroleum)
Q: A corporation organized under PH laws, whose
majority stockholders are German, insured their
merchandise to an American Insurance Company.
During the war between two countries, the
merchandise was burned. Consecutively, the
corporation filed an insurance claim. Would said
claim be granted?
A: No. Since the merchandise was burned during the
war between America and Germany, the insurance
contract became void inasmuch as the majority stock
holders were German subjects. However, premiums
paid should also be return by the insurance company.
(Filipinas Insurance v. Christern)
Q: Are foreign corporation required to first get a
license in order to be a resident corporation in the
PH?
A: No. License merely gives legitimacy to its doing of
business here. What effectively makes such a foreign
corporation a resident corporation in the PH is its
actually being in the PH and locally doing business
here. “Locality of existence”. (State Investment
House, Inc. v. Citibank)
Q: A foreign insurance company entered into a
contract of insurance, without the necessary license
to do business in the PH, for certain goods shipped
by a local carrier in the PH. Subsequently, however,
it acquired its license. Considering that the goods
were loss, does foreign insurance company has the
capacity to sue in the PH?
A: Yes. The lack of capacity at the time of the
execution of the contracts was cured by the
subsequent registration and procurement of the
necessary license to transact in the PH. (Home
Insurance v. Eastern Shipping Lines)
Q: Who has the burden of proving its capacity to sue
before the PH courts?
A: Foreign corporations must affirmatively plead and
prove that it has capacity to sue before the PH courts.
If they are engaged in business in the PH, they must
obtain the necessary licensed in order to maintain a
suit. If they are not so engaged, they must prove that
such is an isolated case. (Atlantic Mutual Insurance v.
Cebu Stevedoring)
Q: What are the requirements in order for a foreign Francisco and expressly agreed upon to be
corporation to seek redress for unfair competition consummated there.
before the PH courts under the Trademark Law?
Q: A New York corp takes part in a bidding and won
A: for the construction of a building in Makati. For
refusing to sign the contract, the corporation sued in
1. Registration of trademark with PH Patent
the PH. The construction company moved to dismiss
office or that it be an assignee;
the suit on the ground that the New York corp has no
2. Reciprocity rule (Leviton Industries v.
right or personality to sue in the PH. How should the
Salvador)
motion to dismiss be resolved?
Q: May foreign corporation who lacks a license to
A: The MTD should be denied. To take part in a
transact business in the PH sue before PH courts?
bidding does not constitute transacting business in
A: Yes. A foreign corporation is allowed to sue before the PH. This is an isolated transaction. (Marshall Wells
PH courts for isolated transactions. Otherwise, it will vs. Elser Co)
hamper the growth and development of business
Q: Supposing that a business was transacted without
relations between Filipino and foreign nationals.
first obtaining the requisite license, would the
Worse, it would be allowing the law to serve as a
contract be valid, rescindable, voidable,
shield for unscrupulous Filipino. (Hang Lung Bank vs.
unenforceable or void?
Saulog)
A: Unenforceable. That is, the corporation cannot sue
Q: Would filing a counterclaim against a foreign
in our courts until after the necessary license has been
corporation constitutes a recognition of the latter’s
obtained. The moment the license is obtained, suits
capacity to sue?
may be instituted even on prelicense contracts.
A: No. Actions by foreign corporations are governed
Q: May a person sue a foreign corp that transacted
by rules different from those in actions against them.
business with him without a license?
A counterclaim partakes of the nature of a complaint
or cause of action against them. (Philippine Columbia A: Yes. The corporation cannot put up by way of
Enterprises Co. v. Lantin) defense its own failure to comply with the law.

Q: What is the Grandfather rule? Q: If a foreign corp does business in the PH and
obtains license therefore, does it become a domestic
A: It applies when there is doubt on the 60-40
corporation?
required Filipino capitalization.
A: If aside from doing business and obtaining license,
As such, stocks owned by foreigners in the different
it is incorporated under our laws, it becomes a
activities of a corporation are sorted out to determine
domestic corporation, a new juristic entity and its
if they did not go beyond the allowable maximum
foreign personality and character is disregarded.
percentage of foreign ownership.
If not, it becomes a domesticated corporation. It
Q: A corporation under the laws of California sued A
would be consider a PH corp in some aspects and
for breach of contract whereby A had agreed to sell
foreign corp in other matters.
sugar to be delivered in San Francisco, where the
contract was entered. Would you grant A’s motion to Q: What is dissolution, winding-up and termination?
dismiss on the ground that the corporation has no
A: Dissolution is change in the relation of the partners
capacity to sue because it did not obtain a license to
caused by any partner ceasing to be associated in the
transact business in the PH?
carrying of the business.
A: No. The contract was an isolated transaction.
Winding-up is the process of settling business affairs.
Further, the corporation was not transacting business
in the PH , the contract having been entered in San
Termination is the point of time after all the
partnership affairs are all wounded up.
FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
Q: Should the court enforce or recognize a foreign
judgment whereby the plaintiff-appellants obtained
a favourable judgment against defendant-
respondents who was neither resident nor domicile
of that foreign country?
A: No. The process of a court has no extraterritorial
effect and no jurisdiction is acquired over the person
by serving him beyond the boundaries of the state.
The foreign judgment need only constitute a prima
facie evidence of justness but it may be repelled by
evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of laws or facts. It
must still be properly pleaded and proven in our
courts by person’s claiming its enforcement.
The best evidence for this is a certified copy of the
same. (Boudard v. Tait)
(Note: EFFECTS OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT; Specific
things -> conclusive upon the title of the thing; Person
-> presumptive evidence and can be repelled by want
of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of laws or facts)
A: No. The French tribunal has no jurisdiction to
entertain an action for the dissolution of marriage
contracted in these Islands to persons domiciled here.
It is established that the court of a country in which
neither of the spouses is domiciled and which one of
them resorted in order to purposely obtain a divorce
decree has no jurisdiction to determine their
matrimonial status. (Ramirez v. Gmur)
(NOTE: The matrimonial property regime is governed
by the national law of the husband. (Art. 80 of FC)
Q: Should the PH court enforce a foreign judgment in
the Circuit Court of Hawaii for payment of sums of
money where petitioner was duly summoned both in
the courts of Hawaii and the PH?
A: Yes. It is true that foreign judgments against a
person is merely presumptive and may be repelled by
want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion, fraud,
or clear mistakes of laws and facts. However,
petitioner failed to impugn the judgment against him
for being in default even though given the
opportunities to do so. As such was held in default.
(Borthwick v. Castro)
Q: Should PH courts recognize an interlocutory order
given by a foreign court?

Q: Would a foreign judgment be enforced and A: No. Interlocutory decree is by no means final, it is
recognized in the PH where service of summons was subject to change with the certain circumstances,
served in defendant’s office in Manila instead of its hence, cannot be implemented in the PH.
Yokohama Branch?
(NOTE: One of the requirements for recognition is
A: Yes. A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid that judgment must be res judicata)
and binding in the country from which it comes, until
contrary is shown. The party attacking a foreign
judgment has the burden of overcoming such
presumption. In the absence of such proof, it shall be
presumed that that rules of service of summons in
Japanese law is the same as the PH law.(Northwest
Orient Airlines v. CA)

(NOTE: The Boudard case was not sustain because in

that case neither the defendant nor his agents were
ever in Hanoi)

Q: Should a court in the PH recognize a divorce

decree obtained in France where parties are Filipino
(wife) and British (husband) citizens and was married
and domiciled here in the PH?