CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER

PRIVATE INT’L LAW [PANGALANGAN] Sources of Conflicts of Law

o It is a part of municipal law which governs 1. Codes & Statutes – e.g. 1987 Const., which
cases involving a foreign element. contains principles on nationality and
comity
PIL v. PRIL 2. Treaties & Int’l Conventions
PIL PRIL 3. Treatises, Commentaries & Studies of
parties States, international individuals, Learned Societies
involved organizations corporations 4. Judicial Decisions – most important source
applicable international law municipal law, of conflicts of law rules
laws except: GENERAL PROCESS IN THE RESOLUTION OF A
conventions, e.g. CONFLICT PROBLEM
Warsaw
Convention of 1. Jurisdiction 2 options—
1929, Hague a. assume jurisdiction – a court may choose
Convention of to apply either forum or foreign law
1955 b. refuse to take cognizance – if the Ct does
sources Art.38 ICJ Statute: rules not take cognizance, based on forum non
a. treaties voluntarily conveniens or on substantive grounds,
b. customary law chosen by a then the conflict resolution does not
c. gen. principles of given State proceed
law teachings of o forum non conveniens – [literally:
eminent int’l law forum is inconvenient] means that a
scholars court which has jurisdiction over a
transact- State-to-State private conflicts case may opt not to take
tions transactions jurisdiction because of practical
remedies a. diplomatic municipal laws considerations
protest e.g. belief that the matter can be
b. negotiations better tried and decided elsewhere,
c. arbitration belief that plaintiff specifically chose
d. conciliation the forum to vex, harass or oppress
e. adjudication the defendant by inflicting upon him
f. use of force the expense or trouble not necessary
g. war to his own right to pursue his
PH laws are divided into 2: remedy.
(1) Internal Rules [IR] – authorize, command 2. Characterization [cause of action] Ct
or prohibit a certain mode of conduct classifies conflict problem as one of family
(2) Conflict Rules [CR] – decide only which relations (marital), contract, property,
law or jurisdiction will give the final succession, tort or other major categories of
solution to the question law

[SALONGA] Nature of Conflict Rule Characterization CR

(1) Factual situation legal status Art. 15 CC
(2) Legal consequence Marriage Art. 71 CC, Art. 75, Art. 124,
Art. 66
e.g. under Art. 16(1), factual situation: the
Art. 26(1) FC, Art. 10, Art. 7(5),
classification as RP/ PP; legal consequence: lex situs
Art. 80, Art. 74, Art. 35, Art.
Dean’s critique: the classification as RP/PP is not 37, Art. 38
mere factual determination, since it would call for Succession Art. 16(2) CC, Art. 17(1), Art.
the applications of Arts. 414-15 CC. 1039, Art. 815-19, Art. 829
Contract Art. 1306 CC, Art. 17(1), Art.

1
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER
1356, Art. 1753
Property Art. 16(1) CC, Art. 124
o [SALONGA] In matters affecting
parcels of land, the characterization
of the lex situs is decisive
o While it is for the lex fori to make the
characterization or qualification, the
judge of the forum should not be
bound entirely by the int’l law of
the forum; rather he should find
guidance in the principles of his
country’s private int’l law.
3. Selection of lex causae [choice of law]
whether PH law (lex fori) or foreign law
forum law will apply in the ff:
o specific forum law decrees that
internal law should apply
o foreign law not pleaded & proved
o case falls under the exceptions to
the application of foreign law:
foreign law is contrary to
public policy [Art. 17(3)]
it is penal/ procedural/
fiscal/ administrative in
nature
[SALONGA] involves RP /
PP with situs in PH [Art.
16]
4. Application of lex causae: foreign law
a. Proof of law – if duly proven, then, it
shall apply; failure to prove, the
processual presumption will apply.
o Reason for the processual
presumption: Our courts do not take
judicial notice of foreign law; just
like any matter of fact, it must be
pleaded and proved.
o 2 concepts of processual
presumption in PH law:
i. Foreign law (as an offshoot
of not being proved)
ii. PH law
b. But even if foreign law is proved, it is
not applied [see: exceptions in #3]
2
COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF VARIOUS
LEGAL SYSTEMS 1
1. lex patriae and lex domicili – the nationality
of the person, his domicile, his residence,
his place of sojourn, or his origin
2. lex situs – place where the thing is, or is
deemed situated
3. lex loci actus – place where the act is done;
particularly impt in contracts and torts
4. lex loci intentionis – intention of the parties
as to the law that should govern their
agreement
5. lex fori – the place where judicial or
administrative proceedings are instituted or
done
6. the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as
a corporation
7. the place where an act is intended to come
into effect, e.g. the place of performance of
contractual duties
8. the flag of a ship, which in many cases is
decisive practically all legal relationships of
the ship and of its master or owner as such;
it also covers contractual relationships,
particularly contracts of affreightment
I. LEGAL STATUS
Art. 15 CC
[LEX PATRIAE]
Laws relating to family rights and duties, or the
status, condition and legal capacity of persons
are binding upon citizens of the PH, even though
living abroad.
→ [BALANE] There are 2 theories on lex patriae
[personal law]:
a. Domiciliary theory – animus manendi [where
there is intention to return and remain]
b. Nationality theory – citizenship [PH]
→ Art. 15 Elements:
1. Laws relate to family rights and duties, or
status, condition and legal capacity
2. Filipino citizen (even though living abroad)
→ Importance of a personal law: the individual’s
nationality (or domicile) serves as a permanent
connection between the individual & the State.
1In Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA, these were considered
as the “contacts”
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER
II. MARRIAGE
Art. 26(1) FC
[LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS]
All marriages solemnized outside the PH, in
accordance with the laws in force in the
country where they were solemnized, and valid
there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except
those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6),
36, 37 and 38. (17a)
Art. 74 FC
The property relationship between husband and wife
shall be governed in the following order:
(1) By marriage settlements executed before
the marriage;
(2) By the provisions of this Code; and
(3) By the local custom. (118)
Art. 80 FC
In the absence of a contrary stipulation in a
marriage settlement, the property relations of the
spouses shall be governed by PH laws, regardless
of the place of the celebration of the marriage and
their residence.
This rule shall not apply:
(1) Where both spouses are aliens;
(2) With respect to the extrinsic validity of
contracts affecting property not situated
in the PH and executed in the country
where the property is located; and
(3) With respect to the extrinsic validity of
contracts entered into in the PH but
affecting property situated in a foreign
country whose laws require different
formalities for its extrinsic validity.
(124a)
→ [PANGALANGAN]
Extrinsic validity lex loci celebrationis
o authority of solemnizing officer [35(2)]
o valid marriage license [35(3)]
o in the presence of solemnizing officer + 2-
witness rule
Intrinsic validity lex patriae [capacity]
o legal capacity: at least 18 y.o. [35(1)]
o consent freely given to solemnizing officer
o bigamous/ polygamous [35(4)]
o mistake of identity [35(5)]
o subsequent marriage, without proper
recording of void/ annulled previous
marriage in the registry [35(6)]
3
o psychological incapacity [36]
o incestuous [37]
o void by reason of public policy [38]
→ Marriage is multi-faceted—it requires
solemnization [Art. 26(1), involves family rights
[Art. 15] and property relations [Art. 80 FC],
thus all these provisions must be reconciled.
Art. 15 in relation to Art. 26(1) FC
[BALANE] Art. 15 provides that family rights
and duties, status and legal capacity are
governed by PH law.
GR: Under Art. 26 FC, all marriages solemnized
abroad in accordance with the laws in force in
the country where they were solemnized and
valid there as such, is also valid in PH.
E: If the marriage is void under PH law, then
the marriage is void, even if valid in the
country where the marriage was solemnized.
EE:
1. unauthorized solemnizing officer [Art. 35(2)]
2. marriage without a license [Art. 35(3)]
Art. 15 in relation to Art. 80 FC
GR: Property relations under PH laws
E: [foreign laws will apply]
1. Contrary stipulation in marriage
settlement
2. Both alien spouses Art. 15
3. Extrinsic validity of marriage settlement
Art. 17(1)
→ Is the choice of law under Art. 74 FC
discriminatory? YES, because those who have
marriage settlements may agree that a different
law will govern.
Article Application
15 >applies to Filipino citizens in general
26 (1) >applies specifically to solemnization of
marriage under foreign law
80 cf. >applies specifically to property
74 relations; gives a choice of law for
spouses in their marriage settlement;
thus, they may opt that their property
relations will be governed by foreign
laws
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER
PROBLEM: Consular marriages
Art. 10 FC
Marriages between Filipino citizens abroad may
be solemnized by a consul-general, consul or
vice-consul of the Republic of the PH. The
issuance of the marriage license and the duties of the
local civil registrar and of the solemnizing officer with
regard to the celebration of marriage shall be
performed by said consular official. (75a)
Art. 7(5) FC
Marriage may be solemnized by:
***
(5) Any consul-general, consul or vice-consul in the
case provided in Article 10. (56a)
→ Elements:
1. Both parties to the marriage are Filipino
citizens
2. They are situated abroad
3. Solemnizing officer is a consul-
general/consul/vice-consul
4. Solemnized in the embassy/consular office
5. Must be valid under PH internal rules
6. Not prohibited by the state of celebration
→ Does it fall under Art. 26(1)? NO, because the
PH embassy is an extension of PH territory. The
consular office, though physically located
outside the PH, is not deemed “outside of the
PH” for legal purposes.
→ What if solemnized outside of the embassy?
Then, Art. 26(1) will apply.
→ What if one of the parties is a foreigner?
Marriage is still valid since the irregularity is
only a formal requisite, i.e. authority of
solemnizing officer. It will be treated as a
marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner under PH internal rules; the
applicable laws are Arts. 124 & 66 CC.
However, under Art.4 FC, the consul/ vice-
consul may be held administratively, criminally
and civilly liable because has no authority to
solemnize the marriage.
Art. 124 CC
If the marriage is between a citizen of the PH and a
foreigner, whether celebrated in the PH or abroad, the
following rules shall prevail:
4
(1) If the husband is a citizen of the PH while the
wife is a foreigner, the provisions of this
Code shall govern their relations;
(2) If the husband is a foreigner and the wife is a
citizen of the PH, the laws of the husband's
country shall be followed, without
prejudice to the provisions of this Code with
regard to immovable property. (1325a)
Art. 66 CC
When either or both of the contracting parties are
citizens or subjects of a foreign country, it shall be
necessary, before a marriage license can be obtained,
to provide themselves with a certificate of legal
capacity to contract marriage, to be issued by
their respective diplomatic or consular officials.
(13a)
PROBLEM: Marriage solemnized abroad
without a license
Art. 3 FC
The formal requisites of marriage are:
***
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases
provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title;
Art. 35(3) FC
The following marriages shall be void from the
beginning:
***
(3) Those solemnized without license, except
those covered the preceding Chapter;
→ Does it fall under Art. 26(1)? YES. The CR will
apply because of the presence of foreign
element. PH IR, namely: Art. 35(3), will not
apply.
→ Is the marriage solemnized without a license
(validly celebrated abroad), also valid under
PH laws? YES, under Art. 26(1), it is not part of
the exceptions. Also, under Art.2 Hague
Convention on Celebration & Recognition of
the Validity of Marriages, formal requirements
of marriage are governed by the law of the state
of celebration. Finally, under Art.220 CC, there
is a presumption of validity of marriage.
→ What if they precisely went abroad to avoid
the license requirement? Still valid, because the
requirement of good faith is under Art.35(2),
not Art.35(3).
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER
PROBLEM: Proxy marriage
Art. 3 FC
The formal requisites of marriage are:
***
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the
appearance of the contracting parties before
the solemnizing officer and their personal
declaration that they take each other as husband and
wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of
legal age. (53a, 55a)
Art. 4 FC
The absence of any of the essential or formal
requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio,
except as stated in Article 35 (2).
A defect in any of the essential requisites shall
render the marriage voidable as provided in Article
45.
An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not
affect the validity of the marriage but the party
or parties responsible for the irregularity shall
be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.
(n)
Art. 6 FC
No prescribed form or religious rite for the
solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be
necessary, however, for the contracting parties to
appear personally before the solemnizing
officer and declare in the presence of not less than
two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as
husband and wife. This declaration shall be contained
in the marriage certificate which shall be signed by the
contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by
the solemnizing officer.
In case of a marriage in articulo mortis, when the party
at the point of death is unable to sign the marriage
certificate, it shall be sufficient for one of the
witnesses to the marriage to write the name of said
party, which fact shall be attested by the solemnizing
officer. (55a)
→ Does it fall under Art. 26(1)? YES. The CR will
apply because of the presence of foreign
element. PH IR, namely: Arts. 3, 4 & 6, will not
apply.
→ Is the proxy marriage validly celebrated abroad
also valid under PH laws? YES, under Art.
5
26(1), it is not part of the exceptions. Also,
under Art.2 Hague Convention on Celebration
& Recognition of the Validity of Marriages,
formal requirements of marriage are governed
by the law of the state of celebration. Finally,
under Art.220 CC, there is a presumption of
validity of marriage.
→ How to argue for invalidity? 2 options:
1. Under Art. 5 & 17(3), treat Arts. 3,4 & 6 as
prohibitory laws
2. Under Art. 17(3), argue that it is against
public policy
Art. 5 CC
Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or
prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law
itself authorizes their validity. (4a)
Art. 17(3) CC
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. (11a)
→ Example of inventive argumentation based on
public policy
ER’s argument: 300+ employees, although
deserving, cannot get their compensation because it
has already prescribed.
SC: yes, prescribed under foreign decree but in PH
law, not yet. It is a matter of public policy in the
application of foreign prescription.
PROBLEM: Same-sex marriage
Art. 1 FC
Marriage is a special contract of permanent union
between a man and a woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal
and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an
inviolable social institution whose nature,
consequences, and incidents are governed by law and
not subject to stipulation, except that marriage
settlements may fix the property relations during the
marriage within the limits provided by this Code. (52a)
Art. 2 FC
No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential
requisites are present:
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must
be a male and a female; and
Art. 38 FC
The following marriages shall be void from the
beginning for reasons of public policy:
(1) Between collateral blood relatives whether
legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil
degree;
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted
child;
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting
parent and the adopted child;
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted
child and the adopter;
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate
child of the adopter;
(8) Between adopted children of the same
adopter; and
(9) Between parties where one, with the intention
to marry the other, killed that other person's
spouse, or his or her own spouse. (82)
→ PUBLIC POLICY PRINCIPLE:
Because of Art. 17(3), public policy is supreme
over PH IR and CR.
Thus, to get a ruling that same sex marriage
is void, argue that it is against public policy.
→ Note that Art. 38 FC is not an exhaustive list of
marriages that are contrary to public policy.
→ Under the repealed Art. 149 CC, there is a
provision which declare family as a matter of
public policy.
Art. 149 CC
The family, being the foundation of the nation, is a
basic social institution which public policy cherishes
and protects. Consequently, family relations are
governed by law and no custom, practice or agreement
destructive of the family shall be recognized or given
effect. (216a, 218a)
→ Is there a requirement that a judgment of
divorce be enforced in the PH? NO, there is no
such requirement under Rule 39 Sec.48. It is
thus enough that the judgment of divorce is
recognized.
If the judgment of divorce is required to be
enforced, then the Filipino spouse may have an
impediment to marry, i.e. lack of notice,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
In such case, it will render Art. 26(2) nugatory.
o As to validity of divorce: recognition
only
o As to other reliefs (e.g. custody,
property relations, etc.): enforcement
required, thus ROC will apply.
Rule 39 Sec. 48 ROC
Effect of foreign judgment 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 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 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. (50a)

PROBLEM: Foreign Divorce

Art. 26(2) FC
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse
shall have capacity to remarry under PH law. (As
amended by Executive Order 227)

6
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER
III. SUCCESSION
Art. 16 CC
[LEX SITUS]
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)
→ All properties are subject to Art.16; however,
wrt property in succession, par.2 provides for a
qualification (not exception) before applying
par.1.
It means that before applying par.1, 4 things
must be checked:
1. Order of succession
2. Amount of successional rights
3. Intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions
4. Capacity to succeed [cf. Art.1039]
After these 4 things have been considered,
par.1 will now govern.
→ Reference to national law is MANDATORY.
→ [BALANE] Art. 16(2) is an extension of the
nationality theory in Art. 15.
Art. 1039 CC
Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the
nation of the decedent.
[PANGALANGAN]
Extrinsic validity no specific CC provision
Intrinsic validity Art. 1039 CC
[BALANE] Every testator, whether Filipino or
alien, wherever he may be, has 5 choices as to
what law to follow for the FORM of his will:
o Citizenship – 816, 817 for aliens; applying
to Filipinos by analogy, 15
o Place of execution – 17(1)
o Domicile – 816 for aliens; applying to aliens
in the PH and to Filipinos by analogy
7
o Residence – 816 for aliens; applying to
aliens in the PH and to Filipinos by analogy
o PH laws – 816, 817 for aliens; applying to
Filipinos by analogy, 15
→ National law of decedent: means lex patriae
(citizenship), not lex domicile (domicile). Law of
domicile is NEVER determinative of status.
→ Only 3 CC provisions refer to the domicile:
1. Filing of legal separation [Art. 99]
2. Revocation of wills [Art. 829]
3. Payment of a demandable sum of
money [Art. 1251(3)]
Art. 815 CC
When a Filipino is in a foreign country, he is
authorized to make a will in any of the forms
established by the law of the country in which he may
be. Such will may be probated in the PH.
Art. 816 CC
The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect
in the PH if made with the formalities prescribed by
the law of the place in which he resides, or according
to the formalities observed in his country, or in
conformity with those which this Code prescribes.
Art. 817 CC
A will made in the PH by a citizen or subject of
another country, which is executed in accordance
with the law of the country of which he is a citizen or
subject, and which might be proved and allowed by
the law of his own country, shall have the same effect
as if executed according to the laws of the PH.
Article Application
815 >Filipino abroad
816 >Alien abroad
817 >Alien in PH
CASE: Aznar v. Garcia (1963)
Facts: The decedent is an American citizen
domiciled in the PH. In his will, it provides that he
is bequeathing Php3,600 to Helen Christensen
(illegitimate daughter) and the rest of his estate to
Lucy Christensen. The conflict problem arose since
under PH law [Art. 16(2)], the national law of the
decedent shall govern, which in this case is the
California law [Art. 946]: if there is no law to the
contrary, the situs of PP is deemed to follow the
person of its owner, and is governed by the law of
the domicile. Hence, the resolution reverted back to
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER
PH law. Under PH CC, Helen is entitled to her
legitime while under California laws, the decedent
is free to dispose of his entire estate.
Issue/ Held: Which law should apply? PH IR.
Ratio: SC decided to ‘accept the renvoi’ in applying
PH IR in resolving the dispute and ruled that Helen
is entitled to her legitime.
Dean’s comments:
1. Characterization: succession, so in checking
the applicable foreign national law, it
should be the IR on succession (Probate
Code)
o What SC did? It referred to a law on
property [Art.946 CC of California:
property follows owner]
o California law was used because it is
the domicile of the property owner.
2. Methodology: PH CR Foreign IR.
o What SC did? PH CR Foreign CR
and IR PH IR.
3. Art.1039 should have been applied in the
case and based on this provision, Helen has
no right to any legitime.
4. The law embodied in Art.946 CC of
California was part of the Old CC, but it
was deleted in the New CC. Thus, the
ponente in Aznar was trying to do a judicial
legislation in bringing back in our laws
(thru jurisprudence) the repealed Old CC
provision.
CASE: Bellis v. Bellis (1967)
Facts: The decedent is an American citizen with
Amercian illegitimate children. His will was
executed and probated in PH. Illegitimate children
claimed that they are entitled to legitimes citing
Art. 17(3).
Issue/ Held: Which law should apply? Texan IR.
Ratio: Whatever public policy or good customs
may be involved in the PH system of legitimes,
Congress has not intended to extend the same to
the succession of foreign nationals. It has
specifically chosen to leave the amount of
successional rights to the decedent's national law.
8
CASE: Phil. Trust Co. v. Bohanan (1960)
Facts: The will of Bohanan, naming the Phil. Trust
Co. as executor, was admitted to probate. In that
order, he was declared to be a citizen of Nevada. In
a subsequent hearing on the proposed project of
partition, Nevada law was not introduced. Thus,
Bohanan’s surviving spouse questioned the
validity of the will insofar as the disposition of the
estate is concerned considering that some of the
testamentary dispositions to their children fall
short of the legitime given them by PH law.
Issue/ Held: Which law shall apply – NEVADA IR
by judicial notice.
Ratio: Under OCC, succession rights to personal
property are to be governed by the national law of
decedent. The records of the case show that during
2 hearings (not concerning the proposed project of
partition) the foreign law was introduced by
appellants’ counsel as well as by the counsel for the
executor and admitted by the Court as an Exhibit.
In addition, the other appellants do not dispute the
provision of the laws of Nevada. Therefore, under
the circumstances of this case, the pertinent
provisions of Nevada law can be taken judicial
notice of although no proof of such law has been
offered during the hearing of the proposed project
of partition itself. Consequently, the testamentary
dispositions should be upheld.
CASE: Gibbs v. Government (1933)
Facts: Allison Gibbs, a citizen and domiciliary of
California, was married to Eva Johnson Gibbs. The
spouses owned parcels of land in Manila. When
Eva died, Allison sought to register these
properties in his name. However, RD refused
because of non-payment of inheritance tax. For
Allison’s part, he invoked Art. 10(2) OCC—
succession rules are governed by the national law
of the decedent; and under the California law, the
community property of the spouses, upon the
death of the wife previous to that of the husband,
belongs to the husband absolutely without
administration. He thus took the position that there
is no need for him to pay to the tax for him to
acquire title over the properties because title vested
in his favor upon the death of his wife.
Issue/ Held: Which law to apply – PH IR.
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER
question which, not being contrary to PH laws,
Ratio: SC resolved the issue based on property must be complied with and executed.
rules, not succession rules. Under Art. 10(1) OCC,
RP are subject to the laws where these are situated. Doctrine: A provision in a foreigner's will to the
Since these are community properties, SC applied effect that his properties shall be distributed in
Art. 1407 OCC, wherein Eva’s share is ½. Upon her accordance with PH law and not with his national
death, her descendible interest in the parcels of law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot
land was transmitted to her heirs by virtue of be ignored in regard to those matters that Art. 16
inheritance. There being an inheritance, Allison is CC— states that the national law should govern.
thus liable for inheritance tax.
Dean’s critique on Miciano: SC declared that the
CASE: Llorente v. CA (2000) application of PH law based on the stipulation in
the will is void, yet in the end, SC applied PH laws
Facts: Lorenzo had 2 wives. First wife was Paula based on processual presumption.
whom he married when he was still a Filipino
citizen, but later, when he acquired US citizenship PROBLEM: Joint wills
and found Paula cheating with his brother, Lorenzo
obtained a foreign divorce. He subsequently Art. 818 CC
married his second wife, Alicia. When Lorenzo Two or more persons cannot make a will jointly, or in
died, Paula applied for letters of administration the same instrument, either for their reciprocal
and invoked her right to legitime as the surviving benefit or for the benefit of a third person. (669)
spouse of Lorenzo.
Art. 819 CC
Issue/ Held: WON Paula entitled to legitime –NO Wills, prohibited by the preceding article, executed by
Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid in
Ratio: SC recognized the validity of foreign the PH, even though authorized by the laws of
the country where they may have been
divorce. As to the intrinsic and extrinsic validity of
executed. (733a)
the will, SC applied Arts. 16(2) and 17(1),
respectively, and remanded the case since the → Does Art. 17(1) apply? NO, because joint wills
foreign laws applicable were not proven. are against public policy. Public policy is
supreme over IR and CR.
CASE: Miciano v. Brimo (1924)
Facts: The will of Joseph Brimo, a Turkish national,
provides that PH laws shall govern the distribution
of his assets. The project of partition was opposed
by Andre Brimo on the ground that the partition
will put into effect provisions of Joseph’s will that
are not in accordance with the latter’s Turkish
nationality. He contends that such provisions are
void because under the PH CC, legal and
testamentary succession shall be governed by the
national law of the person whose succession is in
question. However, Andre failed to prove Turkish
law.

Issue/ Held: Which law will apply? PH

Ratio: In the absence of proof of foreign law, they

are presumed to be the same as forum law. There is
therefore no evidence that Joseph’s national law
was violated in the testamentary dispositions in
9
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER
IV. CONTRACT
Art. 17(1) CC
[LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS]
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.
→ Extrinsic validity lex loci contractus [17(1)]
Variations:
o contracts entered into in different
stages multiple jurisdictions
presumed entered into where the
offer was made [Art. 1319(2)]
o place of execution was merely casual
or accidental most significant
relationship doctrine
→ Intrinsic Validity 3 options:
1. lex loci contractus [where contract made]
2. lex loci solutionis [place of performance]
3. lex loci intentionis [intention of parties]
→ Specific PH rules on formal requirements:
1. Transfer of real rights [Art. 1358]
2. Antichresis [Art. 2134]
3. Mortgage [RP: Art. 2125; PP: 2140]
4. Donation [RP: Art. 749; PP: Art. 748]
CASE: Zalamea v. CA (1993)
Facts: Petitioners were not able to board their flight
due to overbooking. RTC ruled that they were
entitled to moral damages because overbooking by
the airline allegedly amounted to bad faith. CA
reversed, saying US law allows overbooking and as
such, it cannot be deemed to amount to bad faith.
Issue/ Held: Which law should apply? PH law is
the lex loci contractus.
Ratio: US law on the matter was not proven as a
fact, and thus, cannot be the basis of saying that the
airline’s act of overbooking was perfectly valid. In
any case, the SC ruled that US law was inapplicable
in accordance with the principle of lex loci
contractus, and since in this case, the tickets were
sold and issued in the PH, the applicable law
would be PH law.
Dean’s comment: Disagrees. Lex loci contractus
under Art. 17(1) is different from the use of this
principle in this case. Art. 17(1) merely speaks of
form of contract and it should NOT be the basis in
10
answering the question of which law to apply in
case of conflict.
→ Proper law of the contract: Though not
specifically chosen by the parties, is that
which can be IMPLIED as their intention,
as can be gleaned based on the ff:
1. Residence of petitioners
2. Materiality
Art. 1306 CC
[LEX LOCI INTENTIONIS]
The contracting parties may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as
they may deem convenient, provided they are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order,
or public policy. (1255a)
→ provision on freedom of stipulation: parties
may provide for the proper law of contract
CASE: Pakistan Int’l Airlines v. Ople (1990)
Facts: A stipulation in the employment contract of
2 Filipina stewardesses which specifies the law of
Pakistan as the applicable law of the agreement and
lays the venue for the settlement of any dispute
arising out of the agreements only in the courts of
Karachi.
Issue/ Held: Which laws will apply – PH IR.
Ratio: First, the stipulation cannot be validly
invoked to prevent the application of PH labor
laws since the relationship is affected with public
interest. Second, under the principle on center of
gravity of the contract, the PH has multiple and
substantive contacts, such as:
(1) the contract was executed in PH and was
partially performed here;
(2) stewardesses are PH citizens and residents
while PIA is licensed to do business here; and
(3) stewardesses are based in the PH in between
their assigned flights.
In any case, PIA failed to plead and prove the
contents of Pakistan law on the matter. Therefore, it
must be presumed that the applicable provisions
thereof are the same as the applicable provisions of
Philippine law.
Doctrine: Center of Gravity of Contract – in the
absence of an effective choice of law, the issue
arising from or related to the contract will be
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER
governed by the law with the closest & most
substantial connection with the transaction and the
parties.
CASE: KLM v. CA (1975)
Facts: Spouses Mendoza, a Filipino couple, entered
into a world tour contract with the Phil. Travel
Bureau. Of the 35-legged trip, the longest was with
KLM. In Manila, KLM issued their tickets for the
tour. Unfortunately, their vacation turned into a
nightmare when they were brusquely shoved aside
and called ignorantes Filipinos by the Aer Lingus
Manager. Not being able to board the plane, they
took a train to Lourdes, France and incurred
unnecessary additional expenses. They now sued
KLM for damages. KLM invoked the Warsaw
Convention and tried to pass the blame to Aer
Lingus.
Issue/ Held: WON only KLM is liable – YES
Ratio: SC ruled in their favor and held that (1) Art.
30 Warsaw Convention N/A because it does NOT
involve an accident or delay, but a willful
misconduct on the part of KLM’s agent, Aer
Lingus; and (2) the contract of air transportation
was exclusively between the spouses and the KLM,
the latter merely endorsing its performance to other
carriers, like Aer Lingus, as its subcontractors on
agents.
→ Effect of the Guadalajara Convention of 1961
in KLM case: The liability could be extended to
Aer Lingus. Under the Guadalajara Convention,
the contracting carrier’s rights and liabilities
under the Warsaw Convention are extended to
the non-contracting “actual carrier.”
PROBLEM: contracts executed
abroad not in a public instrument
Art. 1356 CC
Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they
may have been entered into, provided all the essential
requisites for their validity are present. However,
when the law requires that a contract be in
some form in order that it may be valid or
enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a certain
way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable. In
such cases, the right of the parties stated in the
following article cannot be exercised. (1278a)
11
Art. 1358 CC
The following must appear in a public document:
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object
the creation, transmission, modification or
extinguishment of real rights over immovable
property; sales of real property or of an
interest therein a governed by Articles 1403,
No. 2, and 1405;
(2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of
hereditary rights or of those of the conjugal
partnership of gains;
(3) The power to administer property, or any
other power which has for its object an act
appearing or which should appear in a public
document, or should prejudice a third person;
(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding
from an act appearing in a public document.
All other contracts where the amount involved
exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in writing,
even a private one. But sales of goods, chattels or
things in action are governed by Articles, 1403, No. 2
and 1405. (1280a)
→ Does Art. 17(1) apply? YES, because there is a
foreign element. Thus, PH IR, namely: Art.1358,
will not apply.
PROBLEM: adhesion contracts
GR: Adhesion contracts are not entirely prohibited.
It is valid in the absence of proof of arbitrariness,
abuse of power, or gross negligence and if it is
fairly & freely agreed upon, reasonable & just
under the circumstances.
E: Use of superior bargaining power
PROBLEM: contracts entered into
abroad by a minor, who is legally
capacitated abroad
→ Art. 15 applies. His legal capacity under PH
laws is binding upon him even if situated
abroad.
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER

V. PROPERTY depend on actual use of their trademarks in the

Art. 16 CC
[LEX SITUS]
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)
Philippines in line with Sec. 2 and 2-A of the same
Trademark Law. The PH’s municipal law on
trademarks, which require actual use in the
Philippines, must subordinate an international
agreement [Paris Convention]. The fact that
international law has been made part of the law of
the land does not imply the primacy of
international law over national law in the
municipal sphere.
Doctrine: Under the doctrine of incorporation,
treaties are given a standing equal, not superior, to
national legislative enactments.

→ Is Art. 16(1) an exemption to 17(1)? NO, they

govern differently.
o Extrinsic validity Art. 17(1)
o Intrinsic Art. 16
→ Specific rules on choses of action:
o shares of stock – follow the laws of the
corporation, not the owner of shares. If
PH corporation, then PH laws will
apply
o patents, trademarks, tradename &
brands – internationally protected
through the Paris Convention

CASE: Philip Morris v. CA

Facts: Philip Morris and its two subsidiaries are
holders of the cigarette trademarks “Mark VII”,
“Mark Ten”, and “Lark”. They are not engaged in
business in PH. Fortune Tobacco, a Filipino corp.,
applied for the registration of their cigarettes
bearing the trademark “Mark”. Philip Morris
assailed Fortune Tobacco’s application, praying for
a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Fortune
Tobacco from producing their “Mark” cigarettes,
alleging that “Mark” is identical or confusingly
similar to their own trademarks. Philip Morris
invoked Sec. 21-A of the Trademark Law, as well as
Art. 2 of the Paris Convention.

Issue/ Held: WON Philip Morris, et al. may sue in

PH – YES

Ratio: SC ruled that although Philip Morris, et al.

may indeed have capacity to sue under Sec. 21-A of
the Trademark Law, the issuance of the writ will
12
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER

VI. ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT → Int’l Convention for the Settlement of

& ARBITRAL AWARD
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:
Investment Dispute (ICSID): this is WB-
sponsored; proceedings therein are peculiar
because these are instituted by multinational
corporations (without sponsorship of the
country of the multinational corp) against the
state in which it is investing.

(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 of 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.

FOREIGN JUDGMENT v. ARBITRAL AWARD

FJ AA
Tribunal Foreign courts Arbitration panel
Governing ROC ADR Act of 2004
law (RA 9285) in
relation to NY
Convention

If domestic AA
ROC
Jurisdiction RTC RTC
How to 1. Petition 1. Petition
enforce 2. Attach FJ 2. Attach AA,
Arbitral
Agreement &
Translation
How to Rule 39 Art. V NY
refuse 1. Jurisdiction Convention
2. Notice 1. Contrary to
3. Collusion public policy
4. Fraud 2. Subject matter
5. Clear mistake of difference is
of law or fact not capable of
settlement by
arbitration
→ The problem with the public policy standard in
the NY Convention is that it may be subject to
courts’ varying interpretation.
13
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER

VII. PUBLIC POLICY

→ Public policy inheres in the national policies
and cultural values of any given state. It is one
which operates only where the event or
transaction takes place in the forum and is not
offended if the transaction is completed abroad.
→ There is no such thing as int’l public policy
→ Important public policy provisions:
1. Joint wills [Arts. 818-19]
2. Art. 17(3)
3. Art. 1306
Art. 818 CC
Two or more persons cannot make a will jointly, or in
the same instrument, either for their reciprocal
benefit or for the benefit of a third person. (669)

Art. 819 CC
Wills, prohibited by the preceding article, executed by
Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid in
the PH, even though authorized by the laws of
the country where they may have been
executed. (733a)

Art. 17(3) CC
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. (11a)

Art. 1306 CC
The contracting parties may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as
they may deem convenient, provided they are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order,
or public policy. (1255a)

14
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER

VIII. TORTS & CRIMES happened, if the latter State adopts a lower
standard of conduct and financial
TORTS v. CRIMES protection to the injured.
Torts Crimes o e.g. State X prohibits sale of liquor to
Character Transitory Local drivers; car accident occurred in State Y.
Where to wherever only in the State The injured person may sue in State X
sue tortfeasor may where he because it has a higher standard of
be found committed the conduct and offers higher financial
crime protection.
Who is Individual State 4. German Rule or Elective Concurrence – the
injured injured person may choose to sue either
Purpose Indemnity for Punishment under the law of:
injuries and/or reform a. place where the actor engages in his
sustained tortious conducts; or
Choice of lex loci delicti lex loci delicti b. place where the effects of his conduct
law comissi occur.
But he cannot cumulate the benefits
TORTS flowing from more than 1 law.
→ Conflicts problem arose when the tortious act
and the resulting injury were committed and CASE: Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA (1998)
sustained, respectively, in different Facts: Morada was a flight attendant of SAUDIA.
jurisdictions. Her co-employees attempted to rape her in Jakarta.
→ Choice of law: lex loci delicti comissi [law of She was tricked by SAUDIA officers into signing
the place where the tort was committed] documents and appearing before foreign courts
→ [SAN BEDA] Modern approaches on choice of which led to her conviction. With the assistance of
law: PH Embassy In Jeddah, Saudi Arabian Officers
1. Most significant relationship – an action admitted that she was wrongfully convicted.
for tort may be filed in the country that has SAUDIA terminated her employment. She filed suit
the most significant relationship to the based on Arts. 19 & 21 CC in RTC. SAUDIA
occurrence & the parties and thus, has the challenged the court’s jurisdiction.
greatest concern with the specific issue of
the case; this approach identifies a plurality Issue/ Held: Where is the situs of tort – PH
of factors that must be considered;
o e.g. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA Ratio: Considering that the case is a tort claim, the
o critique: it can be used to support connecting factor is the place of the tortious
virtually any result conduct [lex loci actus]. However, following the
2. Interest analysis – considers the relevant most significant relationship theory, PH would
concerns that 2 or more states may have in have the following contacts in its favor - place
the case; the State which has the more where the injury occurred, domicile, nationality
relevant & weighty interest in the case and residence of parties, place of relationship.
should be considered locus delicti
o critique: since not all legislative Doctrine: In determining the forum and applicable
enactments explain the purpose of the law of a torts case wherein certain acts or parts of
law, this will encourage courts to the injury occurred in another country, what is
engage in armchair speculation of the important is the place where the over-all harm or
policy behind the law the fatality of the injury to the person or reputation
3. Qavers’ Principle of Preference – a higher had lodged.
standard of conduct & financial protection
Dean’s critique on SAUDIA: SC incorrectly held
given to the injured party by one State is
that there is a foreign element in this case. The
applied by the State where the injury
foreign element in a torts case is not based on the
15
 CONFLICTS OF LAW ║ MMM FINALS REVIEWER
difference of nationalities of the victim and
tortfeasor.
CRIMES
GR: lex loci delicti [law of the place where the
crime was committed]
E: [the State where the crime was committed
cannot assert jurisdiction]
1. Theory of State Immunity [state officials,
diplomatic representatives & officials of
recognized int’l organizations]
the State where the crime was committed
may only ask for the official’s recall
2. French Rule – crimes committed on board a
foreign vessel, even if it is within the
territorial waters of the coastal State
EE: if the acts disturb the peace & order
o PH adopts the English Rule, which is
based on rule on Territoriality
3. Extraterritoriality – crimes punishable
under the local law, although committed by
PH nationals abroad, under Art. 2 RPC
o rationale: these crimes imperil the
national interest of the PH despite their
commission outside of the territory

-o0o-

Prepared by: DJ Dolot [A2016]

References:
Class Notes
Dr. Salonga Book
Prof. Balane Book & Civil Law Reviewer
C2015 Reviewer [Prof. E.A. Pangalangan Book]
San Beda Reviewer

16