PRiVATE INTER}IATIOI,I-/IL LAVJ

S-v jla_bus - Scirool year 20\4_2075Professor: Dean Alu{,,\.tlO D. VALDEZ

T

flen

PH.IVATE TNTETdNATIONAL LAW DEFINED

l. Distinguished from public i:rternational

2. Function of Frivai_e Interna+"icnal Lat.
3. Areas covered:
4.

l_aw

i. Conflict cases (including jurisdiction)

ii. Conflict rules or choice of lar.vs
iii. I,-oreign judgments
Sources of Private international Law,
Refei'ence: Paras, Conflict of Laws
Salonga, Prh-ate International

Lav

Coquia and pangalangan, Conflict of Lar,vs

II- WIiAT IS A CONF'LICTS

CASE AND A FOREIGN ELEMENT:

CASE:

Saudi Arabian A.irtrines v.CA, Oct. g, 1g9g

III- JURISDICTION OF COURTS OVER CONFLICTS CASES

1. Delinition cf JurisCiction
2. DeLerrnination of Jurisdiction
a.) Jurisdicti n o\/er the Subject Matter

b ) Jurisdi"i,;Ht1the Person

Service of Summons
o

Substituted Senrice

Personal Service
Extraterritorial Service ( Rutes of Crrril
Procedui:e, Rule 14. Sec. 15)

c.) Jurisdiction over the propertv

6
o

Actions in rem
Actions in personam
Actions quasi in rem

3. Minimum contacts Tests (Jurisdiction over corporations)

a.) Definition o|N{inrmum Contacts Test

^J

-Doctrine of ProcessuaL Presumption

-Law of Nations or Customary International Lar,v is a law of the
forum. Treaty law is treated like a statute 1aw.
-Administrative bodies and proceedings may take judicial notice of
foreign iaw.
( Dumez Co. v. NLRC, July LL, L9961
5. I{ow Foreign Law Proved?

i. Official Publication
ii. Copy attested by officer having official custody ( Rules132,
24 and 25)

iii.

Secs.

Pr-rbiished treaties on the subject 1aw (Rule 130, Sec.46)

iv. Testimony of an expert uritness

( Asiavest v. CA, September 25, 1998)
OTHER CASES:
-Pardo vs. Republic, January 23, I-95O
-Manufacturers Hanover Trust v. Guerrero, February 19, 2OO3

When foreign 1aw is successfully proved the court applies foreign

1aw: As such, foreign law have been construed in thre jurisdiction
rvhei-e i'. apriies ard as t3.e courts of such jurisdiction have
ciehnite).-v* in ceqorete o sucn la'*-.

VI. DOCTRINE OF BORROWING STATUTE

-Section 48 Code of Civil procedure
( Cadalin v. POEA Administrator December 5, 1994)

VII. WHEN THE FORUM REFUSES TO APPLY A FOREIGN LAW: DOCTRINE

OF EXCEPTIONS TO COMITY

VIII.NATURE OF CONFLICTS RULES AND THE PROBLEMS

OF

CHARACTERIZATION

A.) DEPACAGE
- Classitications of Issues
- Aspects Governed by Different Systems of Law
-Ilaumschild v. Continental Casua1ty, page 116-LZL, Conflicts
by Coquia
B.) BORROWTNG STATUTE
-Cadalin v. POEA Administrator December

5, L994

. Law on Prescription of Actions \\ras sui generic, neither

.

substantive nor procedural.

Foreign Statute of Limitations as one of Substantive Law

C.) PROCEDURE IS ALWAYS GOVERNED BY LEX FORI, OR THE

INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE FORUM.

- Saud.i Arabian Airlines v' CA, October 8, 1998 '/

- oil and' Natural Gas Commission v. CA, July 23^, 1998
- Asiavest Merchant Bankers v' CA July 20,ZOOL

IX. PRINCIPLES OF NATIONALITY AND DOMICILE

1. Nationalily Th-eory- Article 15 New Civil Code
i. Who defines who their citizens are?
(Article 2. Hague Convention)

2. Domiciliary Pri.nciPle
- Forum determines domicile by own staldards
- Article 50 of the New Civil Code
- PrinciPles of Domicile

3. Doctrine of Effective Nationality -Dua1 Citizenship

4. Stateless Persons
5. Married Woman

-Moya Lim Yao

l97t

v. Commissioner of Immigration, october 4,

-Djumantan v. Dorningo, January 30, 1995

)(. RENVOI
1. Definition of Renvoi
2. When does the problem of Renvoi arise?
3. Forms of Renvoi
CASES:

1. Christensen v. Christensen lAznat v. Garcia )- 7 SCRA 95

2. Bellis v. Bellis - 20 SCRA 359
3. Neilson v. Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd [2OO5]
HCA 54 ( September 29,2O5 |

xr.

PERSONAL LAW (PART

NATIO NALITY PRINCIPLE)

1) ART 15 NCC (LEX NATIONAL II,

a. Principle of Legislative Jurisdiction

i. Distinguish from judicial jurisdiction

b. Matters covered by personal law.

i.

Personal status and capacity

ii.

Beginning and end of personality

- Republic of the Philippines v. Jennifer CagandahanSeptember L2,2OO8

- Silverio v. Republic

xrl.

October 22,2OOg

iii.

Absence

iv.

Family relations

v.

Legitimacy,legitimationadoption

vi.

Title of nobiiity

vii.

Surname/Name
- Moore vs. Republic - 8 SCRA 283
- Padilla vs. Republic - 13 SCRA 789
- RA 9048 Civil Registry
- RA 9251c - Art. L76, 364-366, 376

- Art. 384 NCC

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE (PEnSONAL LAW

a. Art. 22+ NCC

PART 2)

Presumption of validity of marriage

b. Formal or Extrinsic aspect - Art. 17 NCC; Arl. 26 par. 1 FC (iex loci

celebrationis)

i. Authority to solernnize marriage

'-'..

iii.

-.'.a::t-aq:

-ice:: se

Iv(arriage ceremo:iv

c. Substantive or intrinsic Aspect

- Art. l-5 NCC (lex nationaLii)

d. Personal Relations - Art. 15 - National 1aw

e. Property Relations

i. Filipino citizens - Art. 80 FC

ii. Except: Art. 80 FC
a. Aliens

b. Properly outside the Philippines - Art. 26 FC and Art. 16

iii. Principle of Immutability

f. Divorce - Why foreign divorce is not recognized?

Ir. rrrL.
Lv P,
^-+.^^aTt2
- Pilapil vs. Ibay Sornera 174 SCRA 653
- Roehr vs. Rodrigaez, et. A1. June 2A,2OO3
- Republic vs. Obresido - Oct. 05, 2OO5
- Republic vs. Iyoy, 47O SCRA 5O8
- Quita v. CA, Dec. 22, 1998

'/
ii. Between aliens - Art.

iii. Muslim

15

Code

iv. Divorce by estcppel

(Var-r

Dorm vs. Romilo, 139

SC

139

v, Art. 36 Psychological Incapacity

Marcos vs. Marcos - Oct. 19, 2OOO

Choa vs. Choa - November 26, 2AOz
Santos vs. CA - 24O SCRA 20
Republic vs. CA and Molina - 268 SCRA 198
Republic vs. Lolita Quintero - Hermano - MayZA,2OO4

XIII.

SUCCESSION

a. Testate and Intestate Succession

b.

- Art.

16 part 2 (lex nationalii)

will

i. Extrinsic Validity - Art. 17 and Art. 815 (1ex loci celebrationis)

also Art. 8161877

ii. Joint Wil1s - Art. 818 - Joint will or in

reciprocal benefit of third person

iii. Holographic

',vi11

same instrument for

- A:t. 810

iv. Intrinsic validi[* Art. 16 pan 2 (order of succession, amouilt of

successional rights, intrinsic validity.
-Llorente vs. CA - Nov. 2g,

ZOOO\

v. Capaci[r to succeed Art. lO39

-Quita vs. CA - Dec. ZZ, 1-999

vi. Revocation of Wi11s: Art B291ex loci celebrationis/1ex dmicilii
Art.

B3O

How revoked?

vii. Probate of wil1s - 1aw of forum re procedural matters. For

extrinsic requirements or compliance, the law that gor.,erns its
extrinsic execution. (Art. LZ,816, glT)
c. Administration of Estate

- Domiciliary/Anciliary Administrator

-Tayag vs. Benguet November 29, 1-96g

d. Caduciary Rights
e. Trust

testamentary trust depends upon the extrinsic validity of the

1ex rei sitae as far as property

will and subject to the

7
xrv. pROpERTy _ ART. 16 pAR 1 NCC (LEX
REr srTAE)
A' Real Property - covers all transactions
involving sa1e, mongage, barter,
exchanges, lease, asslgnment, or any form
of alienation of r:ea1 properfir. A1so,
effects ol co-owner ;hip, qureting of tit1e,
taxation,
registration and the rules of
prescription.

Exceptions:

(1) The principal contract between

the parties although secured by real
(The accessory contract of real state
mortgage is governed by 1ex rei
|i::itt'
(2) Hei-editary succession _

gt

Art 76 par 2

transaction which does not affect transfer

of title to or or,vnership of the

B' capacity to transfer or acquire reai property

rs.go erned by 1a[, of the place
wirere r-he property is located subject
io
;
#raoiti
n to the requirement of
ful1 personality
conbined)

as capacifz to act under Fris national

law. (Art 15 and

i6

-Llantino vs. Co Licng Chong _ 1g8

SCRA Sg2 (1990)
-ph,ippine Banking corporation vs.
Lui she 21 scRA s2 (196z)
- The rule that non_Filio.

thepubli";";;l;ffi

;il:l"iTf;;T.t:lfi

ji.,l";i"

3lil!'J.,ll1,f,?ff i..
exceptions. (e,g. Hereditary Succession;
p^-o^rr"a B1g. 185; relevant
Batas
Supreme Court decisions)
-

Cheesman vs. IAC _ 19g SCRA

98 (1991)

Thomas cheesman and criselda

were marrieci tn lg1oand separated
In 1974 a deed of sale and transfer
in 1981.
Altares in favor of criselda' cn"L.man of po.""".ory rights *u" .-".uted by
was aware of ihe ieed nut aia not
to the sales' In 1gB1 criselda sold
object
the iand to padilla.
Can the sale be annulled by Cheesman?
can he recover the proce.as oitt sare from

rris wife, criselda?

C. Movable properly (both tangible

and intangible)
General Rule

Art. 16 (1ex rei sitae)

- Where it is at the time it is acquired

or possessed.

i' Keys in determining where movable

(tangible) properties are located.
(Goods in Transit, morzing
ii. intangible properties:

"";;1.

or aircrafts, etc.)

1. Debts - the debt is located

where the debtor is where he can
sueC so that the debt can be
be
collected.

7
2.Negotiablelns..l.umentitisusuallydesignatedinthe
iinstrumentitself.Initsabsence,thelccallar,vofthestatervherei'.the
is deiivered. The plesumpiion is conciusive rvith respect to
Pel:son u'ho is a holder

in due course'

tl-re sitrrs of the

3. Shares of si-ock- there is a distinction between
from sale or
shares of stock and. the situs of the income derived
exchangeofsu.c}Lproperties.(Collec'torcflnternalRevenuevs.
Anglo Cllifornia lrlational Bank' 1960)

copyright (WTO
+. Patent, trad'emark' trad'e name and Property
Rights

Agreement on tracle related. aspects of inteilectual

otheru,iseknownasTRIPS-effectiveJanuary0l,1996)
properlry its
NorE: As a general rule, owing to the peculiar nature of intangible
sitt-i.s

is d.eemed to be the domicile of the owner'

iii. Article 1753 of the Civil Code

_ it is lrrough that they be set for transport to the foreign
jurisdiction, as evid.en-ced :y a Bill of Lading or by a Sea Way biil'

XV.

CONTRACTS

a. h,xtrlnsrc

- Art.
.

17 (subject to lei rei sitae)

-

^- -1- -. ^\rv v

i. Clauses - 1aw, ventle, arbit-ration'

-Pakistan Int'I Airlines vs" Ople - 19O SCRA 9O;
-Cadalin vs. POEA - 238 SCRA 72L l1-994l
- Parties to a contract may select the law by r,vhLch it is governed'

ii.Absenceoflaw:"MostSignilicantRelationship"

-Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee corp. vs.

V.P. Eusebio Construction, July 13,2OO4
c. Capacity to enter into contracts
d. Warsaw Convention:

i, Limit of liabiiity $75T (person) $zolt<ito (baggage)

ii. Limit

d.oes

not apply when gross misconduct, malicious and

gross recklessness.

iii. Venue is iurisdiction:

.
.
.

Court of Domicile or Principal place of business

Place of busi.ness where contract is made
Place of destination
-santos iII vs. Northvrest crient Airlines - 21"O SCRA 259

iv. Prescription urithin 2 years from date of arriva-l or ought to

arrive.
e. Cognovit or confession of judgment

XVI. TORTS
a. Traditional ruie : Lex Loci delicti Commissili

b. Moclern Rule: When place of conduct and place of injury are not the
same the law applicable is the law of the state which has the most
significant relationship to the tort.
- Saudi Arabian Ai.rlines vs. CA - Oct. 08, 1999
c. Other modern rules
d. When tort cases involves product liability
e. Foreign tort; alien tort 1aw

XVII. CHOICE OF LAW AFFECTING

CORPOR.ATIONS

AND

OTHER

MULTINATIO NAL ENTERPRISES

i. Dc,n-rici-e o^ a C:rcc;a::c::.
2. Instances where a foreign corporatiofl

rilp^lr sr-te

and be sued in the

Philippines.

XVIII.

RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF POR.EIGN JUDGMENTS

a. Enforcement vs. Recognition

- Direct Act of SovereigntY
- Sense of Justice
Foreign judgment which can only be recognized
1. Declatoryjudgment

2. Judgment with no affirmative relief

ex. Judgment of Dismissal

3. Interest in a thing or status

Bx. Clearing title to land, adoption, divorce

ii. System of qualified recognition

iii. Policy of Preclusion

iv. Difference between Enforcement and Ordinary Action
-Mijares vs. Javier

- April 19, 2OO5

(Cause of Action from judgment itself; Ju.dgment itself is proof)

-Puyat vs. Zabarte - Feb. 26, 2CO1 (Summary judgment)

-Manufacturers Hanover, Trust vs. Guerero - Feb.

(exception to summary judgment - factual is-*ue)

-Philippine Aluminum Wheels vs. FASGI (Oct. L2,

1-9, 2OO3

No. L37378

2OOOI

Extrinsic fraud

-Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. CA - G.R. No. 14323 (Juty
23, t998) - Rule 39 sec. 48 Rules of Court - Tribunal