CONFLICT OF LAWS(Coquia – Pangalangan)

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION

I. Scope of Conflict of Laws: Nature, Definition and ImportanceA. Diversity of Laws, Customs and Practices

Hilton v. Guyot 159 U.S. 113 (1967)B. Definition C. Object, Function and Scope

II. A Brief History and Development of Conflict of Laws A. Roman Law OriginB. Modern Developments

III. Sources of Conflict of LawsA. Codes and StatutesB. Treaties and International ConventionsC. Treatises, Commentaries and Studies of Learned SocietiesD. Judicial Decisions

PART TWO: JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF LAW

IV. JurisdictionA. Basis of Exercise of Judicial Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction Over the PersonWilliam Gemperle v. Helen Schenker 19 SCRA 45 (1967)

2. Jurisdiction Over the PropertyPennoyer v. Neff 95 U.S. 714 (1878)International Shoe Co. v. Washington 326 U.S. 310 (1945)Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co. Trustee, et al. 399 US 306 ( 1950)Shaffer v. Heitner 433 U.S. 186 (1977)

3. Jurisdiction Over the Subject MatterIdonah Perkins v. Roxas 72 Phil 514 (1941)

B. Ways of Dealing with a Conflicts Problem1. Dismiss the Case

Doctrine of Forum Non ConveniensHeine v. New York Insurance Company 42 F2d 426 (1940)In Re: Union Carbide 634 F. Supp. 842 ( SDNY1986)Wing on Company vs. Syyap 64 O.G. 8311 (1967)

2. Assume JurisdictionFleumer v. Hix 54 Phil 610 (1930)Philippine Trust Co. v. Bohanan 106 Phil 997 (1960)

V. Choice of Law

A. The Correlation Between Jurisdiction and Choice of LawB. Approaches of Choice of Law

1. Traditional ApproachesGray v Gray 87 N.H. 82, 174 A.H. 508 (1934)Alabama Great Southern R.R. Co. V. Carroll 97 Ala. 126, 11 So. 803

2. Modern ApproachesAuten v Auten 308 N.Y. 155, 124 N.E. 2d 99 (1954)Haag v Barnes 9 N.Y. 2d 554, 175 N.E. 2d 441, 216 N.Y.S. 2d 65 (1961)Babcock v Jackson 12 N.Y. 2d 473, 240 N.Y.S. 2d 743, 191 N.E. 2d 279 (1963)

VI. The Problem of CharacterizationA. Characterization and the Single- Aspect Method

1. Subject-Matter CharacterizationGibbs v Gov’t of Pi 59 Phil 293 (1993)

2. Substance- Procedure DichotomyGrant v Mcauliffe 41 Cal. 2d 859 (1953) Cadalin v POEA Administrator 238 SCRA 721 (1994)

B. DepecageHaumschild v Continental Casualty 7 Wis. 2d 130, 95 N.W. 2d 814 (1959)

VII. The Problem of RenvoiA. DefinitionB. Various ways of Dealing with the Problem of Renvoi

Aznar vs Garcia 117 Phil. 106, 7 SCRA 95 (1963)Annesley , Davidson v Annesley 95 LJ Ch. 404 (1926)

C. Usefulness of RenvoiUniversity of Chicago v Dater 277 Mich. 653, 270 N.W. 175 (1936)PFAU v Trent Aluminum Co. 55 NJ 511 (1970) Bellis v Bellis 20 SCRA 359 (1968)

VIII. Notice and Proof of Foreign LawA. Extent of Judicial NoticeB. Proof of Foreign Law

Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v Escolin 56 SCRA 266 (1974)In Re Estate of Johnson 39 Phil 156 (1918)Walton v Arabian American Oil Co. 233 F. 2nd. F4 (1956)Leary v Gledhill 8 N.J. 260, 84 A. 2d 725 (1951)Zalamea v CA 228 SCRA 27 (1993) Miciano v Brimo 50 Phil 867 (1924)Suntay v Suntay 95 Phil 500 (1952)Collector of Internal Revenue v Fisher 1 SCRA 93 (1961)

Board of Commissioners (CID ) v Dela Rosa 197 SCRA 858 (1991)

C. Exceptions to the Application of Foreign Law1. The Foreign Law is contrary to an important public policy of the

ForumPakistan International Airlines Corp. v Ople 190 SCRA 90 (1990)

2. The Foreign Law is Procedural in Nature3. Issue are Related to Property (Lex Situs)4. The Issue involved in the Enforcement of Foreign Claim is Fiscal

or Administrative5. The Foreign Law or Judgment is Contrary to Good Morals

(Contra Bonos Mores)6. The Application of Foreign Law will work undeniable injustice to

the Citizen of the Forum7. The Foreign Law is penal in Character8. The application of the Foreign Law might endanger the vital

interest of the State

PART THREE: PERSONAL LAW

IX. NationalityA. Importance of a Personal LawB. Determination of Nationality

1. Natural-Born CitizensTalaroc v Uy 92 Phil. 52 (1952) Co v Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives 199 SCRA 692 (1991)

2. Citizens by NaturalizationYu Kian Chie v Republic 13 SCRA 282 (1965)

C. Procedure for NaturalizationVivo v Cloribel 25 SCRA 616 (1968) Moy Ya Lim Yao v Commission of Immigration 41 SCRA 292 (1971)

D. Loss of Philippine CitizenshipFrivaldo v Comelec 174 SCRA 245 (1989) Frivaldo v Commission on Elections 257 SCRA 727 (1996) Labo, Jr. v Comelec 176 SCRA 1 (1989) Aznar v Comelec 185 SCRA 703 (1990) Republic v Li Yao 214 SCRA 748 (1992)

E. Problems in Applying the Nationality Principle1. Dual or Multiple Citizenship

Nottebohm Case 155 I.C.J. Rep. 4 (1955)Oh Hek How v Republic 29 SCRA 94 (1969)

2. StatelessnessKookooritchkin v Solicitor General 81 Phil. 435 (1948)

X. DomicileA. Definition

Caasi v CA 191 SCRA 229 (1990)

Uytengsu v Republic 95 Phil. 890 (1954)B. Merits and Demerits of DomicileC. General Rules on Domicile

Romualdez- Marcos v Comelec 248 SCRA 300 (1995)Ujano v Republic 17 SCRA 147 (1966)In Re Dorrance’s Estate 39 Pa. 303 (1932)

D. Kinds of DomicileVelilla v Posadas 62 Phil. 624 (1935)White v Tennant 8 S.E. 596 (1888)Caraballo v Republic 4 SCRA 1055 (1962)Go Chen and Go Lek v Collector of Customs of Cebu 56 Phil. 550 (1932)De la Vina vv Villareal and Geopano 41 Phil. 13 (1920)

XI. Principles on Personal Status and CapacityA. Definition

Recto v Harden 100 Phil 427 (1959)B. Legislative Jurisdiction Distinguished from Judicial Jurisdiction

Barnuevo v Fuster 29 Phil 606 (1913) C. Beginning and End of PersonalityD. AbsenceE. NameF. Age of MajorityG. Capacity

Insular Gov’t v Frank 13 Phil 236 (1909)

PART FOUR: CHOICE OF LAW PROBLEMS

XII. Choice-of-Law in Family RelationsA. Marriage

1. Philippine Policy on Marriage and the Family2. Extrinsic Validity of Marriage

Adong v Cheong Seng Gee 43 Phil 43 (1922) People v Mora Dumpo 62 Phil. 246 (1935)Wong Woo Yu v Vivo 13 SCRA 552 (1965)Apt v Apt (1947) P 127

3. Intrinsic Validity of MarriageSottomayor v De Barros 47 L.J.P. 23 L.R. 3 P.D. (1877)In Re May’s Estate 185 N.Y.S 284 (1920)

4. Effects of MarriagePersonal Relations Between the SpousesProperty Relations of Spouses

B. Divorce and Separation1. Divorce Decrees Obtained by Filipinos

Tenchavez v Escano 15 SCRA 355 (1965)Van Dorn v Romillo 139 SCRA 139 (1985)Pilapil v Ibay-Somera 174 SCRA 653 (1989)Quita v CA 300 SCRA 406 (1998)

2. Validity of Foreign Divorce Between Foreigners

C. Annulment and Declaration of NullityD. Parental Relations

1. Determination of Legitimacy of a Child2. Common Law Principles on Legitimacy3. Parental Authority Over the Child

E. AdoptionRepublic of the Philippines v CA 227 SCRA 401 (1993)Uggi Lindamand Therkelsen v Republic 12 SCRA 400 (1964)Ng Hian v Collector of Customs 34 Phil. 248 (1916)

XIII. Choice of Law in PropertyA. The Controlling LawB. Capacity to Transfer or Acquire Property

Llantino v Co Liong Chong 188 SCRA 592 (1990)Cheesman v Intermediate Appellate Court 193 SCRA 93 (1991)

C. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Validity of ConveyancesD. Exceptions to Lex Situs Rule

Liljedahl v Glassgow 190 Iowa 827, 187 NW 870 (1921) E. Situs of Certain Properties

1. Situs of Personal Property for Tax PurposesAsiatic Petroleum v Co Quico 69 Phil. 433 (1940)

2. Situs of Money3. Situs of Debts

Harris v Balk 198 U.S. 215, 25 S. Ct. 625, 49 L. Ed. 10234. Situs of Corporate Shares of Stocks

Collector of Internal Revenue v Anglo California National Bank 106 Phil. 903 (1960)

F. Patents, Trademarks, Trade Name and CopyrightPhilips Export B.V. v CA 206 SCRA 457 (1992)Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corp. v CA 251 SCRA 600 (1995)

XIV. Choice of Law in ContractsA. Contracts Involving a Foreign ElementB. Extrinsic Validity of ContractsC. Intrinsic Validity of Contracts

1. Lex Loci Contractus2. Lex Loci Solutionis

Macmillan and Bloedel v T.H. Valderama and Sons 61 O.G. 1696 (1964)

3. Lex Loci IntentionisD. Capacity to Enter into ContractsE. Choice of Law Issues in Conflicts Contracts Cases

1. Choice of Forum ClauseCompagnie de Commerce v Hamburg Amerika 36 Phil. 590 (1917) King Mau v Sycip 94 Phil 784 (1954)

Hong Kong and Shanghai Bangking Corp. v Sherman 176 SCRA 331 (1980)

2. Contracts with Arbitration ClausePuromines Inc. CA 220 SCRA 281 (1993)The Bremen, Et.al v Zapata Off-shore Company

3. Adhesion ContractsPan Am World Airways v Rapadas 209 SCRA 67 (1992) Philippine Airlines v CA 255 SCRA 48 (1996)American President Lines,LTD. V Klepper 110 Phil. 243 (1960) Lopez v Pan Am 16 SCRA 431 (1965) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v CA 65 SCRA 237 (1975) Santos III v Northwest Orient Airlines 210 SCRA 256 (1992)

4. Special ContractsF. The Applicable Law in the Absence of an Effective ChoiceG. Limitation to Choice of Law

XV. Choice of Law in Wills, Succession and Administration of EstatesA. Extrinsic Validity of Wills

In Re Estate of Johnson 39 Phil 156 (1918)Babcock Templeton v Rider Babcock 52 Phil. 130 (1928)Cayetano v Leonidas 129 SCRA 552 (1984)

B. Intrinsic Validity of WillsC. Interpretation of WillsD. RevocationE. Probate

Suntay v Suntay 95 Phil 500 (1954)Vda. De Perez v Tolete 232 SCRA 722 (1994)

F. Administration of EstatesTayag v Benguet Consolidated Inc. 26 SCRA 242 (1968)

G. Trusts

XVI. Choice of Law in Torts and CrimesA. Policies Behind Conflicts Tort LawB. Lex Loci Delicti Commissi

Loucks v Stardards Oil Co. 224 N.Y. 99; N.E. 198 (1913)Saudi Arabian Airlines v CA 297 SCRA 469 (1998)

C. Modern Theories on Foreign Tort Liability1. The Most Significant Relationship2. Interest Analysis3. Cavers’ Principle of Preference

Schmidt v Driscoll Hotel 249 Minn. 376, N.W. 2d 365 (1957) D. Foreign Tort Claims

1. Conditions for the Enforcement of Tort Claims2. Products Liability of the Foreign Manufacturer

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v Superior Court of California 480 U.S. 102 (1987)Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v Charles Woodson 444 U.S. 286; 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980)

3. The Alien Tort ActHilao v Estate of Ferdinand Marcos ( No. 95-15779 O.C. No. MDL -0084, 1996)Filartiga v Pena-Irala 639 Fed. 2d 876 (1980) Guinto v Marcos 654 F. Supp. 276 ( S.D. Cal. 1986)

4. Philippine Rule on Foreign TortsTime Inc. v Reyes Et. Al. 39 SCRA 303 (1971)

E. Distinguishing Between Torts and CrimesF. Lex Loci Delicti

Liang (Huefeng) v People of the Philippines GR. No. 125865 (2000) U.S. v Fowler 1 Phil 614People v Wong Cheng 46 Phil 729 (1922) U.S. Look Chaw 18 Phil 573 (1910)

XVII. Choice of Law Affecting Corporation and Other Juridical EntitiesA. Corporations

1. Personal Law of a CorporationM.E. Gray v Insular Lumber Company 67 Phil. 139 (1939) Bank of Augusta v Earle 38 U.S. ( 13 Pet. ) 519 (1839)

2. Exceptions to the Rule of Incorporation TestConstitutional and Statutory Restrictions

Pedro Palting v San Jose Petroleum Inc. 18 SCRA 924 (1966) Filipinas Compania de Seguros v Christern, Huenefeld & Co., Inc. 89 Phil. 54 (1951)

Control Test During War3. Domicile or Residence of Foreign Corporations

State Investment House, Inc. v Citibank, N.A. 203 SCRA 9 (1991)

4. Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporations5. Right of Foreign Corporation to Bring Suit

Home Insurance Company v Eastern Shipping Lines 123 SCRA 424 (1983) Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v Cebu Stevedoring Co. Inc. 17 SCRA 1037 (1966)

6. Exception to the License RequirementIsolated Transactions

Eastboard Navigation Ltd. V Juan Ysmael and Company, Inc. 102 Phil. 1 (1957)

Action to Protect Trademark, Trade Name, Goodwill, Patent or for Unfair Competition

Leviton Industries v Salvador 114 SCRA 420 (1982)

Agreements Fully Transacted Outside the PhilippinesHang Lung Bank, Ltd. V Saulog 201 SCRA 137 (1991)

Petition filed is merely a corollary Defense in a Suit against it

Philippine Columbia Enterprise Co. v. Lantin 39 SCRA 376 (1971)

7. Definition and Scope of “Transacting Business”Wang laboratories, Inc. v Mendoza 156 SCRA 44 (1987) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Japan Air lines, Inc. 202 SCRA 450 (1991)Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc. v CA 211 SCRA 824 (1992) Granger Associates v Microwave Systems, Inc. 189 SCRA 631 (1990)

B. Special Corporations1. Religious Societies and the Corporation Sole2. Transnational Corporations

C. Partnerships

PART FIVE: FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

XVIII. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign JudgmentsA. Distinction Between Recognition and EnforcementB. Bases of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Godard v Gray L.R. 6 Q.B. 139 (1870) C. Policies Underlying Recognition and EnforcementD. Requisites for Recognition or Enforcement

1. The Foreign Judgment was rendered by a Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Tribunal which had Jurisdiction over the parties and the case in the proper judicial proceedings

Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. v CA and C.F. Sharp & Company, Inc. 241 SCRA 192 (1995) Boudard v Tait 67 Phil 170 (1939) Ramirez v Gmur 42 Phil 855 (1918)Borthwick v Castro 152 SCRA 229 (1987)

2. The judgment must be valid under the laws of the court that rendered it

3. The judgment must be final and executory to constitute res judicata in another action

Nouvion v Freeman 59 L.J. Ch. 337 ((1889)Querubin v Querubin 87 Phil 124 (1950)

4. The State where the foreign judgment was obtained allows recognition or enforcement of Philippine Judgments

Cowans, et. Al v Teconderoga Pulp & Paper Co. 219 N.Y.S 284 (1927)

5. The Judgment must be for a fixed sum of moneyQuerubin v Querubin 87 Phil 124 (1950)

6. The Foreign Judgment must not be contrary to the public policy or good morals of the country where it is to be enforced

7. The Judgment must not have been obtained by Fraud, Collusion, Mistake of Fact or Mistake of Law

E. Grounds for Non RecognitionF. Modern developments in Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

1. The Hague Conference of Private International Law2. The EEC Convention of 19683. Uniform foreign Money – judgments recognition Act

G. Procedure for EnforcementIngenohl v Olsen & Co. 273 U.S. 541