Astro Notes 2019
BAYAN MUNA v. ALBERTO ROMULO
G.R. No. 159618, 01 February 2011, EN BANC (Velasco, J.R. J.)
Facts:
Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly registered party-list group established to
represent the marginalized sectors of society. Respondent Blas F. Ople, now
deceased, was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs during the period material to this
case. Respondent Alberto Romulo was impleaded in his capacity as then
Executive Secretary.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Having a key determinative bearing on this case is the Rome Statute
establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) with “the power to exercise
its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international
concern x x x and shall be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions.”
The serious crimes adverted to cover those considered grave under
international law, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and
crimes of aggression.
On December 28, 2000, the RP, through Charge d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo,
signed the Rome Statute which, by its terms, is “subject to ratification,
acceptance or approval” by the signatory states. As of the filing of the instant
petition, only 92 out of the 139 signatory countries appear to have completed
the ratification, approval and concurrence process. The Philippines is not
among the 92.
On May 9, 2003, then Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone sent US Embassy Note
No. 0470 to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) proposing the terms of the
non-surrender bilateral agreement (Agreement, hereinafter) between the USA
and the RP via Exchange of Notes No. BFO-028-037 dated May 13, 2003 (E/N
BFO-028-03, hereinafter), the RP, represented by then DFA Secretary Ople,
agreed with and accepted the US proposals embodied under the US Embassy
Note adverted to and put in effect the Agreement with the US government. In
esse, the Agreement aims to protect what it refers to and defines as “persons” of
the RP and US from frivolous and harassment suits that might be brought
against them in international tribunals.8 It is reflective of the increasing pace of
the strategic security and defense partnership between the two countries. As of
May 2, 2003, similar bilateral agreements have been effected by and between
the US and 33 other countries.
The Agreement pertinently provides as follows:
1. For purposes of this Agreement, “persons” are current or former Government
officials, employees (including contractors), or military personnel or nationals
of one Party.
2. Persons of one Party present in the territory of the other shall not, absent the
express consent of the first Party,
(a) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any international tribunal
for any purpose, unless such tribunal has been established by the UN Security
Council, or
(b) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any other entity or third
country, or expelled to a third country, for the purpose of surrender to or
transfer to any international tribunal, unless such tribunal has been established
by the UN Security Council.
3. When the US extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person of the
Philippines to a third country, the US will not agree to the surrender or transfer
of that person by the third country to any international tribunal, unless such
tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council, absent the express
consent of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines [GRP].
4. When the GRP extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person of the
USA to a third country, the GRP will not agree to the surrender or transfer of
that person by the third country to any international tribunal, unless such
tribunal has been established by the UN Security Council, absent the express
consent of the Government of the US.
5. This Agreement shall remain in force until one year after the date on which
one party notifies the other of its intent to terminate the Agreement. The
provisions of this Agreement shall continue to apply with respect to any act
occurring, or any allegation arising, before the effective date of termination.
In response to a query of then Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo on the
status of the non-surrender agreement, Ambassador Ricciardone replied in his
letter of October 28, 2003 that the exchange of diplomatic notes constituted a
legally binding agreement under international law; and that, under US law, the
said agreement did not require the advice and consent of the US Senate.
In this proceeding, petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to respondents
in concluding and ratifying the Agreement and prays that it be struck down as
unconstitutional, or at least declared as without force and effect.
Issue:
Whether or not the RP-US NON SURRENDER AGREEMENT is void ab initio for
contracting obligations that are either immoral or otherwise at variance with
universally recognized principles of international law.
Ruling:

The petition is bereft of merit.
Validity of the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement
Petitioner’s initial challenge against the Agreement relates to form, its threshold
posture being that E/N BFO-028-03 cannot be a valid medium for concluding
the Agreement.
Petitioners’ contention––perhaps taken unaware of certain well-recognized
international doctrines, practices, and jargons––is untenable. One of these is the
doctrine of incorporation, as expressed in Section 2, Article II of the
Constitution, wherein the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles
of international law and international jurisprudence as part of the law of the
land and adheres to the policy of peace, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
An exchange of notes falls “into the category of inter-governmental
agreements,” which is an internationally accepted form of international
agreement. The United Nations Treaty Collections (Treaty Reference Guide)
defines the term as follows:
An “exchange of notes” is a record of a routine agreement that has many
similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the
exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the
one signed by the representative of the other. Under the usual procedure, the
accepting State repeats the text of the offering State to record its assent. The
signatories of the letters may be government Ministers, diplomats or
departmental heads. The technique of exchange of notes is frequently resorted
to, either because of its speedy procedure, or, sometimes, to avoid the process of
legislative approval.
In another perspective, the terms “exchange of notes” and “executive
agreements” have been used interchangeably, exchange of notes being
considered a form of executive agreement that becomes binding through
executive action. On the other hand, executive agreements concluded by the
President “sometimes take the form of exchange of notes and at other times that
of more formal documents denominated ‘agreements’ or ‘protocols.’” As former
US High Commissioner to the Philippines Francis B. Sayre observed in his work,
The Constitutionality of Trade Agreement Acts:
The point where ordinary correspondence between this and other governments
ends and agreements – whether denominated executive agreements or
exchange of notes or otherwise – begin, may sometimes be difficult of ready
ascertainment. It is fairly clear from the foregoing disquisition that E/N BFO-
028-03––be it viewed as the Non-Surrender Agreement itself, or as an integral
instrument of acceptance thereof or as consent to be bound––is a recognized
Astro Notes 2019
mode of concluding a legally binding international written contract among
nations.
Agreement Not Immoral/Not at Variance with Principles of International
Law
Petitioner urges that the Agreement be struck down as void ab initio for
imposing immoral obligations and/or being at variance with allegedly
universally recognized principles of international law. The immoral aspect
proceeds from the fact that the Agreement, as petitioner would put it, “leaves
criminals immune from responsibility for unimaginable atrocities that deeply
shock the conscience of humanity; x x x it precludes our country from delivering
an American criminal to the [ICC] x x x.”63
The above argument is a kind of recycling of petitioner’s earlier position, which,
as already discussed, contends that the RP, by entering into the Agreement,
virtually abdicated its sovereignty and in the process undermined its treaty
obligations under the Rome Statute, contrary to international law principles.
The Court is not persuaded. Suffice it to state in this regard that the non-
surrender agreement, as aptly described by the Solicitor General, “is an
assertion by the Philippines of its desire to try and punish crimes under its
national law. x x x The agreement is a recognition of the primacy and
competence of the country’s judiciary to try offenses under its national criminal
laws and dispense justice fairly and judiciously.”
Petitioner, we believe, labors under the erroneous impression that the
Agreement would allow Filipinos and Americans committing high crimes of
international concern to escape criminal trial and punishment. This is
manifestly incorrect. Persons who may have committed acts penalized under
the Rome Statute can be prosecuted and punished in the Philippines or in the
US; or with the consent of the RP or the US, before the ICC, assuming, for the
nonce, that all the formalities necessary to bind both countries to the Rome
Statute have been met. For perspective, what the Agreement contextually
prohibits is the surrender by either party of individuals to international
tribunals, like the ICC, without the consent of the other party, which may desire
to prosecute the crime under its existing laws. With the view we take of things,
there is nothing immoral or violative of international law concepts in the act of
the Philippines of assuming criminal jurisdiction pursuant to the non-surrender
agreement over an offense considered criminal by both Philippine laws and the
Rome Statute.

Facts:
 Zulueta and his family were passengers of Pan American World
Airways travelling from Honolulu to Manila.
 In one stopover, they were advised that they could disembark for about
30 minutes.
 However, Zulueta almost missed the flight because he came late (due to
the defective announcing system).
 He was asked to open his bags but the employees of the airlines found
nothing. Later on, he was asked to go out of the plane.
 He was left at Wake Island and was able to return to the Philippines 2
days after.
 He filed an action for damages.
Issue: WON there must be an award for damages. YES
Held:
Award for exemplary damages:
It is urged by the defendant that exemplary damages are not recoverable in
quasi-delicts, pursuant to Article 2231 of our Civil Code, except when the
defendant has acted with "gross negligence," and that there is no specific finding
that it had so acted. It is obvious, however, that in off-loading plaintiff at Wake
Island, under the circumstances heretofore adverted to, defendant's agents had
acted with malice aforethought and evident bad faith. If "gross negligence"
warrants the award of exemplary damages, with more reason is its imposition
justified when the act performed is deliberate, malicious and tainted with bad
faith.
Thus, in Lopez v. PANAM, We held:
The rationale behind exemplary or corrective damages is, as the name implies,
to provide an example or correction for public good. Defendant having breached
its contracts in bad faith, the court, as stated earlier, may award exemplary
damages in addition to moral damages (Articles 2229, 2232, New Civil Code.)
Award for moral damages:
In fact, Article 2217 of the Civil Code of the Philippines explicitly provides that
"(t)hough incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or
omission." Hence, "(n)o proof pecuniary loss necessary" — pursuant to Article
2216 of the same Code — "in order that moral ... damages may be adjudicated."
And "(t)he assessment of such damages ... is left to the discretion of the court" -
said article adds - "according to the circumstances of each case."
From the 1972 case:
Astro Notes 2019
The records amply establish plaintiffs' right to recover both moral and
exemplary damages. Indeed, the rude and rough reception plaintiff received at
the hands of Sitton or Captain Zentner when the latter met him at the ramp
("what in the hell do you think you are? Get on that plane"); the menacing
attitude of Zentner or Sitton and the supercilious manner in which he had asked
plaintiff to open his bags ("open your bag," and when told that a fourth bag was
missing, "I don't give a damn"); the abusive language and highly scornful
reference to plaintiffs as monkeys by one of PANAM's employees (who turning
to Mrs. Zulueta and Miss Zulueta remarked, "will you pull these three monkeys
out of here?"); the unfriendly attitude, the ugly stares and unkind remarks to
which plaintiffs were subjected, and their being cordoned by men in uniform as
if they were criminals, while plaintiff was arguing with Sitton; the airline
officials' refusal to allow plaintiff to board the plane on the pretext that he was
hiding a bomb in his luggage and their arbitrary and high-handed decision to
leave him in Wake; Mrs. Zulueta's having suffered a nervous breakdown for
which she was hospitalized as a result of the embarrassment, insults and
humiliations to which plaintiffs were exposed by the conduct of PANAM's
employees; Miss Zulueta's having suffered shame, humiliation and
embarrassment for the treatment received by her parents at the airport — all
these justify an award for moral damages resulting from mental anguish,
serious anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation thereby
suffered by plaintiffs.
KAREN E. SALVACION, minor, thru Federico N. Salvacion, Jr., father and
Natural Guardian, and Spouses FEDERICO N. SALVACION, JR., and EVELINA
E. SALVACION vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, CHINA BANKING
CORPORATION and GREG BARTELLI y NORTHCOTT
G.R. No. 94723 August 21, 1997
FACTS: Greg Bartelli, an American tourist, was arrested for committing four
counts of rape and serious illegal detention against Karen Salvacion. Police
recovered from him several dollar checks and a dollar account in the China
Banking Corp. He was, however, able to escape from prison. In a civil case filed
against him, the trial court awarded Salvacion moral, exemplary and attorney’s
fees amounting to almost P1,000,000.00.
Salvacion tried to execute the judgment on the dollar deposit of Bartelli with the
China Banking Corp. but the latter refused arguing that Section 11 of Central
Bank Circular No. 960 exempts foreign currency deposits from attachment,
garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body,
government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. Salvacion therefore
filed this action for declaratory relief in the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Should Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Section 8 of
Republic Act No. 6426, as amended by PD 1246, otherwise known as the
Foreign Currency Deposit Act be made applicable to a foreign transient?

HELD: NO.
The provisions of Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246,
insofar as it amends Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426, are hereby held to be
INAPPLICABLE to this case because of its peculiar circumstances. Respondents
are hereby required to comply with the writ of execution issued in the civil case
and to release to petitioners the dollar deposit of Bartelli in such amount as
would satisfy the judgment.
Supreme Court ruled that the questioned law makes futile the favorable
judgment and award of damages that Salvacion and her parents fully deserve. It
then proceeded to show that the economic basis for the enactment of RA No.
6426 is not anymore present; and even if it still exists, the questioned law still
denies those entitled to due process of law for being unreasonable and
oppressive. The intention of the law may be good when enacted. The law failed
to anticipate the iniquitous effects producing outright injustice and inequality
such as the case before us.
The SC adopted the comment of the Solicitor General who argued that the
Offshore Banking System and the Foreign Currency Deposit System were
designed to draw deposits from foreign lenders and investors and,
subsequently, to give the latter protection. However, the foreign currency
deposit made by a transient or a tourist is not the kind of deposit encouraged by
PD Nos. 1034 and 1035 and given incentives and protection by said laws
because such depositor stays only for a few days in the country and, therefore,
will maintain his deposit in the bank only for a short time. Considering that
Bartelli is just a tourist or a transient, he is not entitled to the protection of
Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246 against
attachment, garnishment or other court processes.
Further, the SC said: “In fine, the application of the law depends on the extent of
its justice. Eventually, if we rule that the questioned Section 113 of Central Bank
Circular No. 960 which exempts from attachment, garnishment, or any other
order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any
administrative body whatsoever, is applicable to a foreign transient, injustice
would result especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused
Greg Bartelli. This would negate Article 10 of the New Civil Code which provides
that “in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed
that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.”
___________
NOTES:
– On February 4, 1989, Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an American tourist, coaxed
and lured petitioner Karen Salvacion, then 12 years old to go with him to his
apartment. Therein, Greg Bartelli detained Karen Salvacion for four days, or up
to February 7, 1989 and was able to rape the child once on February 4, and
three times each day on February 5, 6, and 7, 1989. On February 7, 1989, after
policemen and people living nearby, rescued Karen, Greg Bartelli was arrested
Astro Notes 2019
and detained at the Makati Municipal Jail. The policemen recovered from
Bartelli the following items: 1.) Dollar Check No. 368, Control No. 021000678-
1166111303, US 3,903.20; 2.) COCOBANK Bank Book No. 104-108758-8 (Peso
Acct.); 3.) Dollar Account — China Banking Corp., US$/A#54105028-2; 4.) ID-
122-30-8877; 5.) Philippine Money (P234.00) cash; 6.) Door Keys 6 pieces; 7.)
Stuffed Doll (Teddy Bear) used in seducing the complainant.
G.R. No. L-23145, Nov. 29, 1968
TAYAG v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED
o PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: Situs of Shares of Stock: domicile of
the corporation
o SUCCESSION: Ancillary Administration: The ancillary administration
is proper, whenever a person dies, leaving in a country other than that
of his last domicile, property to be administered in the nature of assets
of the deceased liable for his individual debts or to be distributed
among his heirs.
o SUCCESSION: Probate: Probate court has authority to issue the order
enforcing the ancillary administrator’s right to the stock certificates
when the actual situs of the shares of stocks is in the Philippines.
FACTS:
Idonah Slade Perkins, an American citizen who died in New York City, left
among others, two stock certificates issued by Benguet Consolidated, a
corporation domiciled in the Philippines. As ancillary administrator of Perkins’
estate in the Philippines, Tayag now wants to take possession of these stock
certificates but County Trust Company of New York, the domiciliary
administrator, refused to part with them. Thus, the probate court of the
Philippines was forced to issue an order declaring the stock certificates as lost
and ordering Benguet Consolidated to issue new stock certificates representing
Perkins’ shares. Benguet Consolidated appealed the order, arguing that the
stock certificates are not lost as they are in existence and currently in the
possession of County Trust Company of New York.
ISSUE: Whether or not the order of the lower court is proper
HELD:
The appeal lacks merit. Tayag, as ancillary administrator, has the power to gain
control and possession of all assets of the decedent within the jurisdiction of the
Philippines
It is to be noted that the scope of the power of the ancillary administrator was,
in an earlier case, set forth by Justice Malcolm. Thus: "It is often necessary to

have more than one administration of an estate. When a person dies intestate
owning property in the country of his domicile as well as in a foreign country,
administration is had in both countries. That which is granted in the jurisdiction
of decedent's last domicile is termed the principal administration, while any
other administration is termed the ancillary administration. The reason for the
latter is because a grant of administration does not ex proprio vigore have any
effect beyond the limits of the country in which it is granted. Hence, an
administrator appointed in a foreign state has no authority in the [Philippines].
The ancillary administration is proper, whenever a person dies, leaving in a
country other than that of his last domicile, property to be administered in the
nature of assets of the deceased liable for his individual debts or to be
distributed among his heirs."
Probate court has authority to issue the order enforcing the ancillary
administrator’s right to the stock certificates when the actual situs of the shares
of stocks is in the Philippines. It would follow then that the authority of the
probate court to require that ancillary administrator's right to "the stock
certificates covering the 33,002 shares ... standing in her name in the books of
[appellant] Benguet Consolidated, Inc...." be respected is equally beyond
question. For appellant is a Philippine corporation owing full allegiance and
subject to the unrestricted jurisdiction of local courts. Its shares of stock cannot
therefore be considered in any wise as immune from lawful court orders.
Our holding in Wells Fargo Bank and Union v. Collector of Internal Revenue
finds application. "In the instant case, the actual situs of the shares of stock is in
the Philippines, the corporation being domiciled [here]." To the force of the
above undeniable proposition, not even appellant is insensible. It does not
dispute it. Nor could it successfully do so even if it were so minded.
Miciano v. Brimo
G.R. No. L-22595, 1 November 1927
FACTS:
Joseph Brimo, an alien testator (Turk) who made his will in the Philippines
stated in the will thathis property should be distributed in accordance with
Philippine law, and not that of his nation.
The judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased filed a scheme of
partition. However, one of the brothers of the deceased opposed the said
partition.
The appellant in the case, who opposed the same, based his opposition on the
fact that the deceased was a Turkish citizen, which his disposition should be in
accordance with the laws of his nationality.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the disposition shall be made in accordance with Philippine
Laws.
RULING:
Astro Notes 2019
No, the Turkish law should govern the disposition of his property pursuant to
Article 16.
According to Article 16 of the Civil Code, suchnational law of the testator is the
one to governhis testamentary dispositions.
The provision in the will is not valid. Said condition then is considered
unwritten, hence the institution of legatees is unconditional and consequently
valid and effective.
Civil Code Article 16 Real Property as well as personal property is
subject to the law of the country where it is situated.
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 be 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.
TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS BELLIS, deceased. PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, executor. MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS,
oppositors-applellants,
Vs.
EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees
FACTS:
Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was “a citizen of the State of Texas and of the
United States.” By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had five
legitimate children; by his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he
had three legitimate childred; and he also had three illegitimate children. On
Agugust 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, in which he
directed that after all taxes, obligations, and expenses of administration are paid
for, his distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the following order
and manner: (a) $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen; (b) P120,000.00
to his three illegitimate children Amos Bellis Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and
Miriam Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each; and (c) after the foregoing two items
have been satisfied, the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his
first and second wives, namely: Edward A. Bellis, et. al, in qual shares.
Subsequently, Amos G. Bellis died and the People’s Bank and Trust Company, as
executor of the will, paid all the bequests therein including the amount of
$240,000.00 in the forms of stocks to Mary E. Mallen and to the three
illegitimate children various amounts totaling P40,000.00 eachin satisfaction of
their legacies. On January 17, 1964, Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma
Bellis filed their respective oppositions to the prejudice of partition on the
ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and,
therefore, compulsory heirs of the deceased.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Texas Law or Philippine Law must apply.
RULING:
Article 16 of the Civil Code render applicable the national law of the
decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four items:
(a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (c) the
intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed. It
also provide that 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 be 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 . Furthermore, Article 1039 decrees that capacity to succeed is to
be governed by the national law of the decedent. Hence; since Amos G. Bellis
was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there
are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the
provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined
under Texas law and the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the
testacy of Amos G. Bellis.
 Doctrine of Processual Presumption:
 The foreign law, whenever applicable, should be proved by the
proponent thereof, otherwise, such law shall be presumed to
be exactly the same as the law of the forum.
 In the absence of proof as to the conflict of law rule of Texas, it
should not be presumed different from ours. Apply Philippine
laws.
 Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the
national law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions,
with regard to four items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of
successional rights; (e) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the
will; and (d) the capacity to succeed. They provide that —
 ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the
law of the country where it is situated.
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 he the nature of
the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
 ART. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of
the decedent.
Astro Notes 2019
 The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the
State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no
forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the
provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be
determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be
applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.
What is the Renvoi Doctrine?
The Renvoi Doctrine is a judicial precept whereby the Conflict of Laws Rule in
the place of the forum refer a matter to the Conflict of Laws Rule in another, and
the latter refers the matter back to the forum (remission) or to a third state
(transmission). Thus, owing to its french translation: “to send back” or “to refer
back unopened”.
It becomes relevant in cases where the individual involved is a national of one
country and a domiciliary of another; or with respect to property, the property
is located in one country and the law of another is being invoked relative to the
issues concerning the property. So much so that where an individual (a
decedent) is a national and a domiciliary of one country (say, Texas U.S.), there
can be no Renvoi as to the issue concerning the validity of his disposition by
virtue of the will here in the Philippines since it is the law of the nationality
which is to be applied and there was no instance of the matter being referred
back (Bellis vs. Bellis; Note that in the case, the Doctrine of Processual
Presumption was applied).
An example where the Renvoi Doctrine was applied was in the case of Aznar
vs. Garcia. The Decedent was a national of California and a domiciliary of the
Philippines. The acknowledged natural child claimed her right to her legitime
pursuant to Philippine law. This was opposed by the decedent’s executor
contending that the will, not mentioning her legitimes, was valid pursuant to
Californian law. The Court in the Philippines ruled in favor of the child. The
reason: while the Philippine laws hold that it is the law of the country of
nationality of the decedent which should govern, where the law of the latter
refers back the matter to the forum or domiciliary, there is Renvoi. Thus the
Philippine Court will take cognizance of the issue and apply the law of the
Philippines. The law of the state of California provides for the applicBility of the
law of the domicile, by reason of which the Court validly ruled in favor of the
acknowledged natural child.
SANTOS III v. NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, 210 SCRA 256
 Doctrine of rebus sic stantibus: Doctrine constitutes an attempt to
formulate a legal principle which would justify non-performance of a
treaty obligation if the conditions with relation to which the parties
contracted have changed so materially and so unexpectedly as to
create a situation in which the exaction of performance would be
unreasonable.”

 But the more important consideration is that the treaty has not been
rejected by the Philippine government. The doctrine of rebus sic
stantibus does not operate automatically to render the treaty
inoperative. There is a necessity for a formal act of rejection, usually
made by the head of State, with a statement of the reasons why
compliance with the treaty is no longer required.
 Right to court access applies only where the court has
jurisdiction. Obviously, the constitutional guaranty of access to courts
refers only to courts with appropriate jurisdiction as defined by law. It
does not mean that a person can go to any court for redress of his
grievances regardless of the nature or value of his claim. If the
petitioner is barred from filing his complaint before our courts, it is
because they are not vested with the appropriate jurisdiction under the
Warsaw Convention, which is part of the law of our land.
 A number of reasons tends to support the characterization of Article
28(1) as a jurisdiction and not a venue provision.
First, the wording of Article 32, which indicates the places where the action for
damages "must"be brought, underscores the mandatory nature of Article 28(1).
Second, this characterization is consistent with one of the objectives of the
Convention, which is to "regulate in a uniform manner the conditions of
international transportation by air."
Third, the Convention does not contain any provision prescribing rules of
jurisdiction other than Article 28(1), which means that the phrase "rules as to
jurisdiction" used in Article 32 must refer only to Article 28(1). In fact, the last
sentence of Article 32 specifically deals with the exclusive enumeration in
Article 28(1) as "jurisdictions," which, as such, cannot be left to the will of the
parties regardless of the time when the damage occurred.
 COMMON CARRIERS; JURISDICTION: It is the passenger’s “ultimate
destination,” not “an agreed stopping place” that determines the
country where suit against international carrier is to be
filed. Examination of the petitioner's ticket shows that his ultimate
destination is San Francisco. Although the date of the return flight was
left open, the contract of carriage between the parties indicates that
NOA was bound to transport the petitioner to San Francisco from
Manila. Manila should therefore be considered merely an agreed
stopping place and not the destination.
 Allegation of tort against international carrier does not include action
from Warsaw Convention provision.
 The complaint could be instituted only in the territory of one of the
High Contracting Parties, before:
a. the court of the domicile of the carrier;
b. the court of its principal place of business;
c. the court where it has a place of business through which the
contract had been made;
d. the court of the place of destination.
Astro Notes 2019
CADALIN v. POEA, 238 SCRA 721
 As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the
forum. Procedural matters, such as service of process, joinder of
actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed by
the laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a
foreign substantive law.
 A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the
sense that it may be viewed either as procedural or substantive,
depending on the characterization given such a law. Thus in Bournias v.
Atlantic Maritime Company, supra, the American court applied the
statute of limitations of New York, instead of the Panamanian law, after
finding that there was no showing that the Panamanian law on
prescription was intended to be substantive. Being considered merely a
procedural law even in Panama, it has to give way to the law of the
forum on prescription of actions.
 However, 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 has the practical effect of treating
the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance. A "borrowing
statute" directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of
limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law. While there
are several kinds of "borrowing statutes," one form provides that an
action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued, will not be
enforced in the forum even though the local statute has not run against
it. Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said Section
provides: If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of
action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippines
Islands.
 Section 48 has not been repealed or amended by the Civil Code of the
Philippines. Article 2270 of said Code repealed only those provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedures as to which were inconsistent with it.
There is no provision in the Civil Code of the Philippines, which is
inconsistent with or contradictory to Section 48 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
 EXCEPTION: In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48
cannot be enforced ex proprio vigore insofar as it ordains the
application in this jurisdiction of Section 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23
of 1976. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim
obnoxious to the forum's public policy. To enforce the one-year
prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the
claims in question would contravene the public policy on the protection
to labor.
 Section 7-a of the Eight-Hour Labor Law provides the prescriptive
period for filing "actions to enforce any cause of action under said law."
On the other hand, Article 291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines

provides the prescriptive period for filing "money claims arising from
employer-employee relations." The claims in the cases at bench all
arose from the employer-employee relations, which is broader in scope
than claims arising from a specific law or from the collective bargaining
agreement.
The contention of the POEA Administrator, that the three-year prescriptive
period under Article 291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines applies only to
money claims specifically recoverable under said Code, does not find support in
the plain language of the provision. Neither is the contention of the claimants in
G.R. Nos. 104911-14 that said Article refers only to claims "arising from the
employer's violation of the employee's right," as provided by the Labor Code
supported by the facial reading of the provision.
 Where the claims are for benefits granted under the Bahrain law, only
the claimants who worked in Bahrain shall be entitled to file their
claims in a class suit, excluding those who worked elsewhere.
 An official document from a foreign government can be admitted in
evidence in proceedings before an administrative body even without
observing the rule provided in Section 24, Rule 132 of the 1989 ROC on
Evidence.
 The parties to a contract may select the law by which it is to be
governed. In such a case, the foreign law is adopted as a "system" to
regulate the relations of the parties, including questions of their
capacity to enter into the contract, the formalities to be observed by
them, matters of performance, and so forth.
Instead of adopting the entire mass of the foreign law, the parties may just agree
that specific provisions of a foreign statute shall be deemed incorporated into
their contract "as a set of terms." By such reference to the provisions of the
foreign law, the contract does not become a foreign contract to be governed by
the foreign law. The said law does not operate as a statute but as a set of
contractual terms deemed written in the contract.
 A basic policy of contract is to protect the expectation of the parties.
Such party expectation is protected by giving effect to the parties' own
choice of the applicable law. The choice of law must, however, bear
some relationship to the parties or their transaction. There is no
question that the contracts sought to be enforced by claimants have a
direct connection with the Bahrain law because the services were
rendered in that country.
 WHAT LAW SHALL GOVERN: (based on the contract adhesion) If the
foreign law is more beneficial, then it shall be applied. But in the
contract it also provides that the salaries will be lowered as it will be
same as provided in the contract.
 The intent of the parties will be given effect, then the foreign is deemed
incorporated in the contract. The foreign law does not operate as a
statute but is merely a contractual term.
Astro Notes 2019
 PRESCRIPTION: either as procedural (law of the forum will prevail) or
substantive (foreign law); it is not relevant if a local court has a
borrowing statute. Even if there is a borrowing statute, it will not apply
if it is contrary to public policy.
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. CA, G.R. No. 122191. October 8, 1998
 Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily establish the existence of a
foreign element, the problem herein could present a “conflicts” case.
 FOREIGN ELEMENT: A factual situation that cuts across territorial
lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or more states is said
to contain a “foreign element”. The presence of a foreign element is
inevitable since social and economic affairs of individuals and
associations are rarely confined to the geographic limits of their birth
or conception.
 The forms in which this foreign element may appear are many. The
foreign element may simply consist in the fact that one of the
parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a
contract between nationals of one State involves properties situated
in another State. In other cases, the foreign element may assume a
complex form.
 In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that
private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national, and
that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. Also, by
virtue of the employment of Morada with the petitioner Saudia as a
flight stewardess, events did transpire during her many occasions of
travel across national borders, particularly from Manila, Philippines
to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a “conflicts”
situation to arise.
 Although Article 19 merely declares a principle of law, Article 21 gives
flesh to its provisions. Thus, we agree with private respondent’s
assertion that violations of Articles 19 and 21 are actionable, with
judicially enforceable remedies in the municipal forum. Based on the
allegations in the Amended Complaint, read in the light of the Rules of
Court on jurisdiction we find that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.
Its authority to try and hear the case is provided for under Section 1 of
Republic Act No. 7691.
 Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the parties,
also weigh heavily in favor of the RTC Quezon City assuming
jurisdiction. Paramount is the private interest of the litigant.
Enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained is quite obvious. Relative
advantages and obstacles to a fair trial are equally important. Plaintiff
may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, ‘vex’, ‘harass’, or
‘oppress’ the defendant, e.g. by inflicting upon him needless expense

or disturbance. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the
defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.
 Forcing a party to seek remedial action in a place where she no longer
maintains substantial connections would cause a fundamental
unfairness to her.
 Similarly, the trial court also possesses jurisdiction over the persons
of the parties herein. By filing her Complaint and Amended
Complaint with the trial court, private respondent has voluntary
submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court.
 The records show that petitioner SAUDIA has filed several motions
praying for the dismissal of Morada’s Amended Complaint. SAUDIA also
filed an Answer In Ex Abundante Cautelam dated February 20, 1995.
What is very patent and explicit from the motions filed, is that SAUDIA
prayed for other reliefs under the premises. Undeniably, petitioner
SAUDIA has effectively submitted to the trial court’s jurisdiction by
praying for the dismissal of the Amended Complaint on grounds other
than lack of jurisdiction. Clearly, petitioner had submitted to the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Thus, we find
that the trial court has jurisdiction over the case and that its
exercise thereof, justified.
 As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems
seek to answer two important questions: (1) What legal system should
control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in
two or more states; and (2) to what extent should the chosen legal
system regulate the situation.
 Several theories have been propounded in order to identify the legal
system that should ultimately control. Although ideally, all choice-of-
law theories should intrinsically advance both notions of justice and
predictability, they do not always do so. The forum is then faced with
the problem of deciding which of these two important values should be
stressed.
 In applying said principle to determine the State which has the most
significant relationship, the following contacts are to be taken into
account and evaluated according to their relative importance with
respect to the particular issue: (a) the place where the injury
occurred; (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury
occurred; (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of
incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place
where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.
 Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under
what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is known
as “characterization”, or the “doctrine of qualification”. It is the
“process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of
question specified in a conflicts rule.” The purpose of
“characterization” is to enable the forum to select the proper law
Astro Notes 2019
 Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual
situation, event, or operative fact. An essential element of conflict rules
is the indication of a “test” or “connecting factor” or “point of contact”.
Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as
property right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of
contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration, the place of
performance, or the place of wrongdoing.
 Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the
possible test for the determination of the applicable law. These “test
factors” or “points of contact” or “connecting factors” could be any of
the following:
“(1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn,
or his origin;
(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;
(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be
situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved;
(4) the place where an act has been done, thelocus actus, such as the place
where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a
tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts
and torts;
(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of
performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to
be exercised;
(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their
agreement, the lex loci intentionis;
(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or
done. Thelex fori—the law of the forum—is particularly important because, as
we have seen earlier, matters of ‘procedure’ not going to the substance of the
claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever the
content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a
given case for the reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the
applications of foreign law; and
(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal
relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers
contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment.”
 There is likewise logical basis on record for the claim that the
“handing over” or “turning over” of the person of private
respondent to Jeddah officials, petitioner may have acted beyond its
duties as employer.
 Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving torts,
the “connecting factor” or “point of contact” could be the place or places
where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred. And applying the
torts principle in a conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be
said as a situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious
conduct took place). This is because it is in the Philippines

where petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina
residing and working here. According to her, she had honestly
believed that petitioner would, in the exercise of its rights and in the
performance of its duties, “act with justice, give her her due and
observe honesty and good faith.” Instead, petitioner failed to protect
her, she claimed. That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly
occurred in another country is of no moment. For in our view what is
important here is the place where the over-all harm or the fatality of
the alleged injury to the person, reputation, social standing and human
rights of complainant, had lodged, according to the plaintiff below
(herein private respondent). All told, it is not without basis to identify
the Philippines as the situs of the alleged tort.
 As already discussed, there is basis for the claim that over-all injury
occurred and lodged in the Philippines. There is likewise no question
that private respondent is a resident Filipina national, working with
petitioner, a resident foreign corporation engaged here in the business
of international air carriage. Thus, the “relationship” between the
parties was centered here, although it should be stressed that this suit
is not based on mere labor law violations. From the record, the claim
that the Philippines has the most significant contact with the matter in
this dispute, raised by private respondent as plaintiff below against
defendant (herein petitioner), in our view, has been properly
established.
 Prescinding from this premise that the Philippines is the situs of the
tort complaint of and the place “having the most interest in the
problem”, we find, by way of recapitulation, that the Philippine law on
tort liability should have paramount application to and control in the
resolution of the legal issues arising out of this case. Further, we hold
that the respondent Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter of the complaint; the appropriate venue
is in Quezon City, which could properly apply Philippine law. Moreover,
we find untenable petitioner’s insistence that “[s]ince private
respondent instituted this suit, she has the burden of pleading and
proving the applicable Saudi law on the matter.” As aptly said by
private respondent, she has “no obligation to plead and prove the law
of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since her cause of action is based on
Articles 19 and 21” of the Civil Code of the Philippines. In her
Amended Complaint and subsequent pleadings she never alleged that
Saudi law should govern this case. And as correctly held by the
respondent appellate court, “considering that it was the petitioner who
was invoking the applicability of the law of Saudi Arabia, thus the
burden was on it [petitioner] to plead and to establish what the law of
Saudi Arabia is.
Astro Notes 2019
 IS FORUM NON-CONVENIENS APPLY? The Court has jurisdiction but
still the court may dismiss if it appears that it is inconvenient to the
parties. Here, it is convenient.
LAUREL v. GARCIA, 187 SCRA 797
 Roppongi property is of public dominion.
 The respondents try to get around the public dominion character of the
Roppongi property by insisting that Japanese law and not our Civil
Code should apply.
 We see no reason why a conflict of law rule should apply when no
conflict of law situation exists. A conflict of law situation arises only
when: (1) There is a dispute over the title or ownership of an
immovable, such that the capacity to take and transfer immovables,
the formalities of conveyance, the essential validity and effect of the
transfer, or the interpretation and effect of a conveyance, are to be
determined ; and (2) A foreign law on land ownership and its
conveyance is asserted to conflict with a domestic law on the same
matters. Hence, the need to determine which law should apply.
 In the instant case, none of the above elements exists. The issues are not
concerned with validity of ownership or title. There is no question
that the property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the authority
of the respondent officials to validly dispose of property belonging to
the State. And the validity of the procedures adopted to effect its sale.
This is governed by Philippine Law. The rule of lex situs does not apply.
 The subsequent approval on October 4, 1988 by President Aquino of
the recommendation by the investigating committee to sell the
Roppongi property was premature or, at the very least, conditioned on
a valid change in the public character of the Roppongi property.
Moreover, the approval does not have the force and effect of law since
the President already lost her legislative powers. The Congress had
already convened for more than a year.
 There is no law authorizing its conveyance. It is not for the President to
convey valuable real property of the government on his or her own sole
will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law
enacted by the Congress. It requires executive and legislative
concurrence. The sale of the said property may be authorized only by
Congress through a duly enacted statute, and there is no such law.
CONFLICTS OF LAWS; Definition:
1. That part of the law of each state or nation which determines whether,
in dealing with a legal situation, the law or some other state or nation
will be recognized, given effect, or applied (16 Am Jur, 2d, Conflict of
Laws, §1).
2. That part of municipal law of a state which directs its courts and
administrative agencies, when confronted with a legal problem
 Astro Notes 2019

involving a foreign element, whether or not they should apply a foreign 3. Judicial Decisions
law/s (Paras). 4. International Customs
DISTINGUISHED FROM PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW Indirect:
1. Natural moral law
BASIS CONFLICT OF LAW LAW OF NATIONS
1. Work of writers
1 Nature Municipal in character International in character TERMS:
Lex Domicilii – law of the domicile; in conflicts, the law of one’s domicile
Dealt with by private Sovereign states and applied in the choice of law questions
individuals; governs other entities possessing Lex Fori – law of the forum; that is, the positive law of the state, country or
individuals in their international personality, jurisdiction of whose judicial system of the court where the suit is brought or
private transactions e.g., UN; governs states in remedy is sought is an integral part. Substantive rights are determined by the
Persons which involve a foreign their relationships law where the action arose (lex loci) while the procedural rights are governed
2 involved element amongst themselves by the law of the place of the forum (lex fori)
Lex Loci – law of the place
Generally affected by Lex Loci Contractus – the law of the place where the contract was made or law
Private transactions public interest; those in of the place where the contract is to be governed (place of performance) which
Transactions between private general are of interest may or may not be the same as that of the place where it was made
3 involved individuals only to sovereign states Lex Loci Rei Sitae – law of the place where the thing or subject matter is
situated; the title to realty or question of real estate law can be affected only by
May be peaceful or the law of the place where it is situated
forcible Lex Situs – law of the place where property is situated; the general rule is that
Peaceful: includes lands and other immovables are governed by the law of the state where they are
diplomatic negotiation, situated
tender & exercise of good Lex Loci Actus – law of the place where the act was done
offices, mediation, Lex Loci Celebrationis – law of the place where the contract is made
inquiry & conciliation, Lex Loci Solutionis – law of the place of solution; the law of the place where
arbitration, judicial payment or performance of a contract is to be made
settlement by ICJ, Lex Loci Delicti Commissi – law of the place where the crime took place
reference to regional Lex Mereatoria – law merchant; commercial law; that system of laws which is
agencies adopted by all commercial nations and constitute as part of the law of the land;
Forcible: includes part of common law
severance of diplomatic Lex Non Scripta – the unwritten common law, which includes general and
relations, retorsions, particular customs and particular local laws
reprisals, embargo, Lex Patriae – national law
boycott, non-intercourse, Renvoi Doctrine – doctrine whereby a jural matter is presented which the
pacific blockades, conflict of laws rules of the forum refer to a foreign law which in turn, refers the
Remedies collective measures matter back to the law of the forum or a third state. When reference is made
and Resort to municipal under the UN Charter, back to the law of the forum, this is said to be “remission” while reference to a
4 Sanctions tribunals and war. third state is called “transmission.”
SOURCES: Nationality Theory – by virtue of which the status and capacity of an individual
Direct: are generally governed by the law of his nationality. This is principally adopted
1. Constitutions in the RP
2. Codifications Domiciliary Theory – in general, the status, condition, rights, obligations, &
1. Special Laws capacity of a person should be governed by the law of his domicile.
2. Treaties and Conventions
 Astro Notes 2019

Long Arm Statutes – Statutes allowing the courts to exercise jurisdiction when (g) When application of the foreign law may work undeniable injustice to the
there are minimum contacts between the non-resident defendant and the citizens of the forum
forum. (h) When application of the foreign law might endanger the vital interest of the
WAYS OF DEALING WITH A CONFLICTS PROBLEM: state
1. Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, or on the ground of forum non- 2. APPLY FOREIGN LAW – when properly pleaded and proved
conveniens THEORIES WHY FOREIGN LAW SHOULD BE GIVEN EFFECT
DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS – the forum is inconvenient; the 1. Theory of Comity – foreign law is applied because of its convenience &
ends of justice would be best served by trial in another forum; the controversy because we want to give protection to our citizens, residents, &
may be more suitably tried elsewhere transients in our land
1. Assume jurisdiction and apply either the law of the forum or of another 2. Theory of Vested Rights – we seek to enforce not foreign law itself but
state the rights that have been vested under such foreign law; an act done in
1. i. A specific law of the forum decrees that internal law another state may give rise to the existence of a right if the laws of that
should apply state crated such right.
1. APPLY INTERNAL LAW – forum law should be applied whenever there 3. Theory of Local Law– adherents of this school of thought believe that
is good reason to do so; there is a good reason when any one of the we apply foreign law not because it is foreign, but because our laws, by
following factors is present: applying similar rules, require us to do so; hence, it is as if the foreign
Examples: law has become part & parcel of our local law
 Article. 16 of the Civil Code – real and personal property subject to the 4. Theory of Harmony of Laws – theorists here insist that in many cases
law of the country where they are situated and testamentary we have to apply the foreign laws so that wherever a case is decided,
succession governed by lex nationalii that is, irrespective of the forum, the solution should be approximately
 Article 829 of the Civil Code – makes revocation done outside the same; thus, identical or similar solutions anywhere & everywhere.
Philippines valid according to law of the place where will was made When the goal is realized, there will be “harmony of laws”
or lex domicilii 5. Theory of Justice – the purpose of all laws, including Conflict of Laws,
 Article 819 of the Civil Code – prohibits Filipinos from making joint is the dispensing of justice; if this can be attained in may cases applying
wills even if valid in foreign country the proper foreign law, we must do so
1. ii. The proper foreign law was not properly pleaded and proved Rules on Status in General
NOTICE AND PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW Factual Situation Point of Contact
 As a general rule, courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws;
Foreign laws must be pleaded and proved Beginning of personality of natural National law of the child (Article
 Effect of failure to plead and prove foreign law (3 alternatives) of the 1 person 15, CC)
forum court:
(a) Dismiss the case for inability to establish cause of action 2 Ways & effects of emancipation Same
(b) Assume that the foreign law of the same as the law of the forum
(c) Apply the law of the forum 3 Age of majority Same
1. The case falls under any of the exceptions to the application of
4 Use of names and surnames Same
foreign law
Exceptions to application of foreign law: 5 Use of titles of nobility Same
(a) The foreign law is contrary to the public policy of the forum
(b) The foreign law is procedural in nature 6 Absence Same
(c) The case involves issues related to property, real or personal (lex situs)
(d) The issue involved in the enforcement of foreign claim is fiscal or Lex fori (Article 43, 390, 391, CC;
administrative 7 Presumptive death & survivorship Rule 131 §5 [jj], Rules of Court)
(e) The foreign law or judgment is contrary to good morals (contra bonos
Rules on Marriage as a Contract
mores)
(f) The foreign law is penal in character FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT

Between Filipinos
Between Foreigners
Celebrated
Abroad Mixed
Between Foreigners
Celebrated
in RP Mixed
Marriage by proxy (NOTE:
a marriage by proxy is
considered celebrated
where the proxy appears
Rules on Marriage as a Status
FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT
National of husband(Note: Effect of
subsequent change of nationality:
Personal rights & obligations
1 between husband & wife
Lex loci celebrationis is without
prejudice to the exceptions
under Articles 25, 35 (1, 4, 5 &
6), 36, 37 & 38 of the Family
Code (bigamous & incestuous
marriages) & consular marriages
Lex loci celebrationis EXCEPT if
the marriage is:
1. Highly immoral (like
bigamous/ polygamous
marriages)
2. Universally considered
incestuous (between
brother-sister, and
ascendants-
descendants)
Apply 1 (b) to uphold validity of
marriage
National law (Article 21, FC)
PROVIDED the marriage is not
highly immoral or universally
considered incestuous)
National law of Filipino
(otherwise public policy may be
militated against)
Lex loci celebrationis (with
prejudice to the foregoing rules)
1. If both will have a new
nationality – the new one
2. If only one will change – the
last common nationality
3. If no common nationality –
nationality of husband at
Astro Notes 2019
the time of wedding)
National law of husband without
prejudice to what the CC provides
concerning REAL property located
in the RP (Article 80) (NOTE:
Change of nationality has NO
EFFECT. This is the DOCTRINE OF
IMMUTABILITY IN THE
Property relations bet husband & MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY
2 wife REGIME)
Rules on Property
FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT
Real property Lex rei sitae (Article 16, CC)
National law of decedent
Successional rights (Article 16 par. 2, CC)
National law of decedent
Capacity to succeed (Article. 1039)
The law intended will be the
Contracts involving real proper law of the contract (lex
property which do not deal loci voluntantis or lex loci
with the title thereto intentionis)
The principal contract
(usually loan) is governed by
the proper law oft the
contract – (lex loci
voluntatis or lex loci
intentionis)NOTE: the
mortgage itself is governed
by lex rei sitae. There is a
possibility that the principal
contract is valid but the
mortgage is void; or it may be
the other way around. If the
principal contract is void, the
mortgage will also be void (for
lack of proper cause or
consideration), although by
Contracts where the real itself, the mortgage could have
Exceptions property is given as security been valid.

Tangible personal property (choses in possession)
1 In General
Exceptions: same as those for
real property
Means of Transportation
Vessels
2 Other means
Things in transitu (these
things have a changing status
because they move)
Loss, destruction,
deterioration
Validity & effect of the seizure
of the goods
Disposition or alienage of the
3 goods
FACTUAL SITUATION
INTangIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
(CHOSES IN ACTION)
Recovery of debts or involuntary
assignment of debts
1 (garnishment)
2 Voluntary assignment of debts
Lex rei sitae (Article. 16, CC)
EXCEPTION: same as those for
real property EXCEPT that in
the example concerning
mortgage, the same must be
changed to pledge of personal
property)
Law of the flag (or in some
cases, place of registry)
Law of the depot (storage
place for supplies or resting
place)
Law of the destination
(Article. 1753, CC)
Locus regit actum (where
seized) – because said place is
their temporary situs
Lex loci volutantis or lex loci
intentionis– because here
there is a contract
POINT OF CONTACT
Where debtor may be effectively
served with summons (usually the
domicile)
Lex loci voluntatis or lex loci
intentionis(proper law of the
Other Theories:
1. National law of the debtor or creditor
2. Domicile of the debtor or creditor
3. Lex loci celebrationis
4. Lex loci solutionis
3 Taxation of debts
4 Administration of debts
Negotiability or non-negotiability
5 of an instrument
Validity of transfer, delivery or
6 negotiation of the instrument
Effect on a corporation of the sale
7 of corporate shares
Effect between the parties of the
8 sale of corporate shares
Taxation on the dividends of
9 corporate shares
Taxation on the income from the
10 sale of corporate shares
11 Franchises
Goodwill of the business &
12 taxation thereto
Patents, copyrights, trademarks,
13 trade names
Astro Notes 2019
contract)
Domicile of creditor
Lex situs of assets of the debtor
(for these assets can be held liable
for the debts)
The right embodied in the
instrument (for example, in the
case of a Swedish bill of exchange,
Swedish law determines its
negotiability)
In general, situs of the instrument
at the time of transfer, delivery or
negotiation
Law of the place incorporation
Lex loci voluntatis or lex loci
intentionis (proper law of the
contract) – for this is really a
contract; usually this is the place
where the certificate is delivered)
Law of the place of incorporation
Law of the place where the sale
was consummated
Law of the place that granted them
Law of the place where the
business is carried on
In the absence of a treaty, they are
protected only by the state that
granted themNOTE: foreigners

Wills, Succession & Administration of Conflict Rules
FACTUAL SITUATION
Extrinsic Validity of Wills
1 Made by an alien abroad
2 Made by a Filipino abroad
3 Made by an alien in the RP
FACTUAL SITUATION
Extrinsic Validity of Joint Wills (made
in the same instrument)
1 Made by Filipinos abroad
2 Made by aliens abroad
3 Made by aliens in the RP
Intrinsic Validity of Wills
Capacity to Succeed
may sue for infringement of
trademarks and trade names in
the RP ONLY IF Filipinos are
granted reciprocal concessions in
the state of the foreigners
POINT OF CONTACT
Lex nationalii OR lex domicilii OR RP
law (Article 816, CC), OR lex loci
celebrationis(Article 17(1))
Lex nationalii OR lex loci
celebrationis(Article 815)
Lex nationalii OR lex loci
celebrationis(Article 817)
POINT OF CONTACT
Lex nationalii (void, even if valid
where made) (Article 819)
Valid if valid according to lex
domicilii or lex loci
celebrationis (Article 819)
Lex loci celebrationis therefore void
even if apparently allowed by
Article 817 because the prohibition
on joint wills is a clear expression
of public policy
Lex nationalii of the deceased –
regardless of the LOCATION &
NATURE of the property (Article 16
(2))
Lex nationalii of the deceased – not
of the heir (Article 1039)
Revocation of Wills
1 If done in the RP
If done OUTSIDE the RP
1. By a NON-DOMICILIARY
1. By a DOMICILIARY of the
2 RP
Probate of Wills Made Abroad
1 If not yet probated abroad
2 If already probated abroad
Executors and Administrators
1 Where appointed
2 Powers
Rules on Obligation and Contracts
Astro Notes 2019
Lex loci actus (of the revocation)
(Article. 829)
Lex loci celebrationis (of the making
of the will, NOT revocation), OR lex
domicilii(Article 829)
Lex domicilii (RP law) OR lex loci
actus (of the revocation) (Article
17)
Lex fori of the RP applies as to the
procedural aspects, i.e., the will
must be fully probated here & due
execution must be shown
Lex fori of the RP again applies as to
the procedural aspects; must also
be probated here, but instead of
proving due execution, generally it
is enough to ask for the
enforcement here of the foreign
judgment on the probate abroad
Place where domiciled at death or
incase of non-domiciliary, where
assets are found
Co-extensive with the qualifying of
the appointing court – powers may
only be exercised within the
territorial jurisdiction of the court
concernedNOTE: these rules also
apply to principal, domiciliary, or
ancillary administrators &
receivers even in non-successive
cases
 Astro Notes 2019

FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT of commission of torts) is faced by liability for foreign torts may be
the problem of characterization. In enforced in the RP if:
Lex loci celebrationis (Article 17 civil law countries, the locus delicti is 1. The tort is not penal in
Formal or Extrinsic Validity {1}) generally where the act began; in character
common law countries, it is where 2. If the enforcement of the
Exceptions the act first became effective tortious liability won’t
contravene our public policy
1. Alienation & encumbrance
3. If our judicial machinery is
of property Lex situs (Article 16 [1])
adequate for such
Law of the RP (if made in RP enforcement
1. Consular contracts consulates) Rules on Crimes

National law (Article 15) without FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT

prejudice to the case of Insular
Essential elements of a crime and Generally where committed (locus
Government v Frank 13 P 236,
penalties regit actum)
where the SC adhered to the
Capacity of Contracting Parties theory of lex loci celebrationis Theories as to what court has jurisdiction:
1. Territoriality theory – where the crime was committed
Exception
2. Nationality theory – country which the criminal is citizen or a subject
Alienation & encumbrance of 3. Real theory – any state whose penal code has been violated has
property Lex situs (Article 16 {1}) jurisdiction, where the crime was committed inside or outside its
territory
Proper law of the contract – lex 4. Protective theory – any state whose national interests may be
Intrinsic validity (including contractus(in the broad sense), jeopardized has jurisdiction so that it may protect itself
interpretation of the instruments, and meaning the lex voluntatis or lex 5. Cosmopolitan or universality theory – state where the criminal is found
amt. of damages for breach) loci intentionis or which has his custody has jurisdiction
6. Passive personality theory – the state of which the victim is a citizen or
Other Theories are: subject has jurisdiction
1. Lex loci celebrationis (defect: this makes possible the evasion of the NOTE: In the RP, we follow the territoriality theory in general; exception:
national law) Article 2, RPC, stresses the protective theory
2. Lex nationalii (defect: this may impede commercial transactions)
3. Lex loci solutionis (law of the place of performance) (defect: there may The locus delicti of certain crimes
be several places of performance
4. Prof Minor’s solution: Frustrated an consummated, Where the victim was injured (not
5. Perfection – lex loci celebrationis homicide, murder, infanticide & where the aggressor wielded his
6. Cause or consideration – lex loci considerations 1 parricide weapon)
7. Performance – lex loci solutionis (defect: this theory combines the
Where the intended victim was
defect of the others)
(not where the aggressor was
Rules on Torts situated) – so long as the weapon
FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT or the bullet either touched him or
fell inside the territory where he
Liability & damages for torts in Lex loci delicti (law of the place where 2 Attempted homicide, etc. was
generalNOTE: The locus delicti (place the delict was committed)NOTE:
3 Bigamy Where the illegal marriage was

4 Theft & robbery
Estafa or swindling thru false
5 representation
Conspiracy to commit treason,
rebellion, or seditionNOTE: Other
conspiracies are NOT penalized by
6 our laws
7 Libel
8 Continuing crime
9 Complex crime
Rules on Juridical Persons
FACTUAL SITUATION
Corporations
Powers and liabilities
performed
Where the property was
unlawfully taken from the victim
(not the place to which the
criminal went after the
commission of the crime)
Where the object of the crime was
received (not where the false
representations were made)
Where the conspiracy was formed
(not where the overt act of
treason, rebellion or sedition was
committed)
Where published or circulated
Any place where the offense
begins, exists or continues
Any place where any of the
essential elements of the crime
took place
POINT OF CONTACT
General rule: the law of the place of
incorporationEXCEPTIONS:
1. For constitutional purposes
– even of the corporation
was incorporated in the RP,
it is nor deemed a Filipino
corporation & therefore
can’t acquire land, exploit
our natural resources, 7
operate public utilities
unless 60% of capital if
Filipino owned
2. For wartime purposes – we
pierce the corporation veil &
go to the nationality of the
Astro Notes 2019
controlling stockholders to
determine if the corporation
is an enemy (CONTROL
TEST)
Formation of the corporation
(requisites); kind of stocks,
transfer of stocks to bind the
corporation, issuance, amount &
legality & dividends, powers &
duties of members, stockholders
and officers Law of the place of incorporation
Law of the place of incorporation &
Validity of corporate acts & law of the place of performance (the
contracts (including ultra act or contract must be authorized
vires acts) by BOTH laws)
Right to sue & amenability to
court processes & suits against
it Lex fori
Law of the place of incorporation
provided that the public policy of the
Manner & effect of dissolution forum is not militated against
If not fixed by the law creating or
recognizing the corporation or by
any other provision – the domicile is
where it is legal representation is
established or where it exercises its
Domicile principal functions (Article. 15)
Principal receiver is appointed by
the courts of the state of
incorporation; ancillary receivers, by
the courts of any state where the
corporation has assets (authority is
Receivers (appointment & CO-EXTENSIVE) w/ the authority of
powers) the appointing court
NOTE: Theories on the personal and/or governing law of corporations:
1. Law of the place of incorporation (this is generally the RP rule)
2. Law of the place or center of management (center for administration or
siege social) (center office principle)
3. Law of the place of exploitation (exploitation centre or siege d’
 Astro Notes 2019

exploitation)

Partnerships

The personal law of the partnership,

The existence or non-existence i.e., the law of the place where it was
of legal personality of the firm; created (Article 15 of the Code of
the capacity to contract; liability Commerce) (Subject to the
of the firm & the partners to exceptions given above as in the case
3rd persons of corps.)

Creation of branches in the RP;

validity & effect of the branches’ RP law (law of the place where
commercial transaction; & the branches were created) (Article 15,
jurisdiction of the court Code of Commerce)

Dissolution, winding up, &

termination of branches in the RP law (Article 15, Code of
RP Commerce)

If not fixed by the law creating or

recognizing the partnership or by
any other provision – the domicile is
where it is legal representation is
established or where it exercises its
Domicile principal functions (Article. 15)

RP law insofar as the assets in the RP

are concerned can be exercised as
Receivers such only in the RP

Foundations (combination of capital

independent of individuals, usually Personal law of the foundation (place
not for profit) of principal center of administration)