CONFLICT OF LAWS
RMC - School of Law | Atty. Vincent Juan
Reviewer by Alnessa Mhea Macabenta
Definition (By Edgardo Paras):
Conflicts of Law is also known as Private International Law. It is that
part of municipal law which directs the courts and its administrative
agencies, when confronted with a legal problem containing a foreign
element, to decide whether to apply a foreign law or foreign laws.
Elements:
1. Municipal Law
2. Directed to courts and admin agencies
3. Confronted with a legal problem involving foreign element
4. Whether or not to apply foreign law/laws
Foreign Element
A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by
two or more diverse laws is said to contain a foreign element.
Foreign elements may come in different forms such as one of the
parties is a foreign national or the properties in question are in a
foreign state, or the contract is executed in a foreign country.
Three Phases of Judicial Resolution
1. Jurisdiction
2. Choice of Law
3. Recognition and Enforcement of Judgment
Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to try, hear, and decide a case.
For a court to validly exercise its power to adjudicate a controversy, it
must have jurisdiction over:
(a) The plaintiff and defendants
(b) The subject matter
(c) The property or the res
(d) The issues in the case.
STEPS IN DEALING A CONFLICT PROBLEM:
1.
2.
Determine whether the court has jurisdiction over the
case. If it has no jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed
on that ground.
If it has jurisdiction, it may:
a. Refuse to assume jurisdiction on the ground of
forum non conveniens.
b. Assume jurisdiction, in which case it may either:
i.
Apply the internal law of the forum.
(Lex fori)
ii.
Apply the proper foreign law.
(Lex Causae)
OVER THE PERSON
Section 5. Service in person on the defendant. – Whenever
practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof
to the defendant in person and informing the defendant that he or
she is being served, or, if he or she refuses to receive and sign for it,
by leaving the summons within the view and in the presence of the
defendant. (6a)
HASEGAWA V. KITAMURA, G.R. No. 149177, 23 Nov 2007
In resolving the conflicts problem, courts should ask the following
questions:
1. "Under the law, do I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the parties to this case?
2. "If the answer is yes, is this a convenient forum to the
parties, in light of the facts?
3. "If the answer is yes, what is the conflicts rule for this
particular problem?
4. "If the conflicts rule points to a foreign law, has said law
been properly pleaded and proved by the one invoking it?
5. "If so, is the application or enforcement of the foreign law
in the forum one of the basic exceptions to the application of
foreign law? In short, is there any strong policy or vital
interest of the forum that is at stake in this case and which
should preclude the application of foreign law?
JURISDICTION
Section 6. Substituted service. – If, for justifiable causes, the
defendant cannot be served personally after at least three (3)
attempts on two (2) different dates, service may be effected:
(a) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence to
a person at least eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient
discretion residing therein;
(b) By leaving copies of the summons at [the] defendant’s office or
regular place of business with some competent person in charge
thereof. A competent person includes, but is not limited to, one who
customarily receives correspondences for the defendant;
(c) By leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making
his or her authority and purpose known, with any of the officers of
the homeowners’ association or condominium corporation, or its
chief security officer in charge of the community or the building
where the defendant may be found; and
(d) By sending an electronic mail to the defendant’s electronic mail
address, if allowed by the court. (7a)
Section 14. Service upon foreign private juridical entit[ies]. – When
the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has
transacted or is doing business in the Philippines, as defined by law,
service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance
with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the
government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its
officers, agents, directors or trustees within the Philippines.
If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the
Philippines, or has no resident agent but has transacted or is doing
business in it, as defined by law, such service may, with leave of
court, be effected outside of the Philippines through any of the
following means:
Section 23. Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's voluntary
appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons.
The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall be deemed a
voluntary appearance. (23a)
(a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the
foreign country with the assistance of the [D]epartment of [F]oreign
[A]ffairs;
SAUDI ARABIA AIRLINES V. CA, G.R. No. 122191, 8 October 1998
By filing a complaint, Morada has voluntarily submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court. Paramount is the private interest of the
litigant. Had it refused to take cognizance of the case, it would be
forcing Morada to seek remedial action elsewhere, i.e. in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where she no longer maintains substantial
connections. That would have caused a fundamental unfairness to
her.
(b) By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the
country where the defendant may be found and by serving a copy of
the summons and the court order by registered mail at the last
known address of the defendant;
(c) By facsimile;
(d) By electronic means with the prescribed proof of service; or
(e) By such other means as the court, in its discretion, may direct.
(12a)
Section 16. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts
are unknown. – In any action where the defendant is designated as
an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his or her whereabouts
are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, within
ninety (90) calendar days from the commencement of the action,
service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him or her by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places
and for such time as the court may order.
Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which
shall not be less than sixty (60) calendar days after notice, within
which the defendant must answer. (14a)
Section 17. Extraterritorial service. – When the defendant does not
reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which
is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or
claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief
demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant
from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been
attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be
effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under [S]ection
[5]; or as provided for in international conventions to which the
Philippines is a party; or by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in
which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be
sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant,
or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order
granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not
be less than sixty (60) calendar days after notice, within which the
defendant must answer. (15a)
Section 18. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. – When
any action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides
within the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may,
by leave of court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under
the preceding [S]ection. (16a)
By filing several motions and praying for reliefs (such as dismissal),
SAUDIA has effectively submitted to the trial court’s jurisdiction.
NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES INC VS CA, CF SHARP COMPANY
G.R. No. 112573, 9 February 1995
FACTS: Northwest Airlines and C.F Sharp Company through its Japan
branch, entered into an International Passenger Sales Agency
Agreement, whereby the Northwest authorized the C.F to sell its air
transportation tickets. On March 25, 1980, Northwest sue C.F in
Tokyo, Japan for unremitted proceeds of the ticket sales with claim
for damages.
The Tokyo Court was not able to acquire jurisdiction over C.F Sharp
because it could not serve the summons on Mr. Dinozo as he claimed
to be not working on the company anymore.
The Tokyo Court nonetheless rendered judgment and ordered C.F.
Sharp to pay the amount owed, plus damages and interest. This
judgment became final and executory but Tokyo Court was not able
to execute the decision in Japan so Northwest Orient filed a suit for
enforcement of judgment before the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 54.
C.F. Sharp filed its answer averring that judgment of the Japanese
Court sought to be enforced is null and void and unenforceable in
this jurisdiction having been rendered without due and proper notice
to the defendant, and thus, the decision was null and void.
Northwest Orient filed an appeal and the Court of Appeals upheld
the RTC’s decision.
ISSUE:
Whether Japanese Court can acquire jurisdiction over a Philippine
Corporation doing business in Japan by serving summons through
diplomatic channels on the Philippine Corporation at its principal
office in Manila after prior attempts to serve summons in Japan had
failed.
RULING:
Yes. Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if a
defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines,
service may be made: (1) on its resident agent designated in
accordance with law for that purpose, or (2) if there is no such
resident agent, on the government official designated by the law to
that effect; or (3) on any of its officers or agents within the
Philippines.
If a foreign corporation has designated an agent to receive summons,
the designation is exclusive, and service of summons is without force
and gives the court no jurisdiction unless made upon him.
Where corporation has no such agent, service shall be made on the
government official designated by law, to wit: (a) the Insurance
Commisioner in the case of a foreign insurance company; (b) the
Superintendent of Banks, in case of a foreign banking corporation;
and (c) the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the case of other
foreign corporations duly licensed to do business in the Philippines.
GOMEZ VS CA, TROCINO GR No. 127692 March 10, 2004
FACTS: Sps. Jesus and Caridad Trocino mortgaged two parcel of land
to Dr. Clarence Yujuico. The mortgage was subsequently foreclosed
and the properties sold at public auction on July 11, 1988, and
before the expiry of the redemption period, the spouses Trocino sold
the property to petitioner who in turn, redeemed the same from Dr,
Yujuico. Th spouses Trocino however refused to convey ownership of
the properties to petitioner, hence he compliant.
The trial court Process server served summons on respondent the
defendant, through their counsel Atty. Bugarin filed their answer.
Defendant Caridad respondent mother verified said pleading. After
the trial on the merits, the RTC render its decision in favor of the
plaintiffs and against the defendant and was ordered to jointly and
severally executed a deed of sale in favor of the plaintiffs and to
deliver the owners duplicate copies.
Respondent Adolfo and Mariano filed with the Court of Appeal, a
petition for annulment of the judgment rendered by the RTC – Cebu
alleging that the trial court’s decision is null and void on the ground
that itdid not acquire jurisdiction over their persons as they were not
validly served with a copy of the summons and the complaint.
According to them, at the time of summons was served on them
Adolfo was already in Ohio, USA and has been residing there for 25
years, while Mariano was in Talibon Bohol, they also refuted the
receipt of the summons by Caridad A. Trocino and the representation
made by Atty. Bugarin in their behalf.
ISSUE: Whether or not summons were effectively served on
respondents?
RULING: No, When the defendant in an action in personam is a
non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the
authority of the court, personal service of summons within the state
is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over his person.
ADOLFO (US resident for 25 years) - extraterritorial service
MARIANO (Residence in Bohol) - Personal/Substituted Service
PIONEER INTERNATIONAL, LTD. vs. HON. TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR.,
G.R. No. 156848; October 11, 2007
FACTS: On January 16, 1998, Antonio D. Todaro (Todaro) filed a
complaint for sum of money and damages with preliminary
attachment against PIL, Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. (PCPI),
Pioneer Philippines Holdings, Inc. (PPHI), John G. McDonald
(McDonald), and Philip J. Klepzig (Klepzig). PIL and its co-defendants
were served copies of the summons and of the complaint at PPHI
and PCPI’s office in Alabang, Muntinlupa, through Cecille L. De Leon
(De Leon), who was Klepzig’s Executive Assistant. Todaro alleged that
PIL is a corporation duly organized under Australian laws, while PCPI
and PPHI are corporations duly organized under Philippine laws. PIL
is engaged in the ready-mix and concrete aggregates business and
has established a presence worldwide. PIL established PPHI as the
holding company of the stocks of its operating company in the
Philippines, PCPI. McDonald is the Chief Executive Officer of PIL’s
Hong Kong office while Klepzig is the President and Managing
Director of PPHI and PCPI. For his part, Todaro further alleged that he
was the managing director of Betonval Readyconcrete, Inc.
(Betonval) from June 1975 up to his resignation in February 1996.
ISSUES:
1. WON Trial court may acquire jurisdiction over the person of PIL,
despite its claim that it is a foreign corporation “not doing business”
in the Philippines.
2. Assuming arguendo that jurisdiction may be acquired over the
person of [PIL], WON the trial court acquired jurisdiction since
summons was improperly served on [PIL].
RULING:
1.YES. The RTC may acquire jurisdiction over the person of PIL
pursuant Section 12, Rule 14 (Service upon foreign private juridical
entity). PIL insists that its sole act of “transacting” or “doing
business” in the Philippines consisted of its investment in PPHI.
Under Philippine law, PIL’s mere investment in PPHI does not
constitute “doing business.”
However, the Supreme Court declared that, based on the allegations
in Todaro’s complaint, PIL was doing business in the Philippines when
it negotiated Todaro’s employment with PPHI. Furthermore, the
phrase “doing business in the Philippines” in the former version of
Section 12, Rule 14 now reads “has transacted business in the
Philippines.” The scope is thus broader in that it is enough for the
application of the Rule that the foreign private juridical entity “has
transacted business in the Philippines.
2. No. The court has failed to acquire jurisdiction over PIL. There are
three prescribed ways to serve summons on a foreign juridical entity
as provided for in Sec 12, Rule 14. These are as follows:
1. Service on its resident agent designated in accordance with law,
2. Service on the government officials designated by law,
3. Service on any corporation’s officers or agents within Phils.
In the present case, service of summons on PIL failed to follow any of
the prescribed processes. Summons were served on De Leon,
Klepzig’s Executive Assistant. The Supreme Court ruled that PIL
transacted business in the Philippines and Klepzig was its agent
within the Philippines. However, there was improper service of
summons on PIL since summons were not served personally on
Klepzig, but to his assistant.
LEAH PALMA vs. HON. DANILO P. GALVEZ, G.R. No. 165273, March
10, 2020
FACTS: Palma filed with the RTC an action for damages against the
Philippine Heart Center, Dr. Giron, Dr. Cruz, alleging that the
defendants committed professional fault, negligence and omission
for having removed her right ovary against her will, and losing the
same and the tissues extracted from her during her surgery. Later,
Palma filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Complaint,
praying for inclusion of some nurses, one of which is respondent
Agudo.
The RTC’s process server submitted his return of summons stating
that the alias summons, together with a copy of the amended
complaint and its annexes, were served upon Agudo thru her
husband Alfredo, who received and signed the same since Agudo
was out of the country.
Agudo’s counsel filed a Notice of Appearance and Motion for
Extension of Time to File Answer stating that he was just engaged by
Alfredo Agudo, as respondent Agudo was out of the country and the
Answer was already due. Two weeks later, counsel again filed a
Motion for Another Extension of Time to File Answer, stating that the
draft answer was finished but would be sent to Agudo for
clarification/verification before the Phil. Consulate in Ireland.
Two weeks later, Agudo filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that
the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over her as she was not
property served with summons since she was temporarily out of the
country. Palma filed her Opposition to the MTD, arguing that a
substituted service of summons on Agudo’s husband was valid and
binding on her, that the service of summons under Sec. 16, Rule 14
was not exclusive and may be effected by other modes of service.
RTC granted Agudo’s MTD. RTC found that while summons were
served at Agudo’s house and received by her husband, such service
did not qualify as a valid service of summons on her as she was out
of the country at the time it was served. Palma thus filed this
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE: W/N there was a valid service of summons on Agudo.
RULING: In civil cases, the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant either by the service of summons or by the
latter’s voluntary appearance and submission to the authority of the
former.
that place, and therefore, was competent to receive the summons
on Agudo’s behalf.
RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Agudo when her counsel
entered his appearance on Agudo’s behalf, without qualification and
without questioning the propriety of the service of summons, and
even filed 2 Motions for Extension of Time to File Answer. In effect,
Agudo, through counsel, invoked RTC’s jurisdiction over her person.
This is considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court.
CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA, INC. v. JOSEPH BASSO G.R. Nos.
178382-83, September 23, 2015
FACTS: Petitioner Continental Micronesia is a foreign corporation
organized and existing under the laws of and domiciled in the United
States of America. It is licensed to do business in the Philippines.
Respondent, a US citizen residing in the Philippines, accepted an
offer to be a General Manager position by Mr. Braden, Managing
Director-Asia of Continental Airlines. CMI took over the Philippine
operations of Continental, with respondent retaining his position as
General Manager. Thereafter, respondent received a letter from Mr.
Schulz, who was then CMI’s Vice President of Marketing and Sales,
informing him that he has agreed to work in CMI as a consultant on
an “as needed basis.” Respondent wrote a counter-proposal that was
rejected by CMI.
Respondent then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the
petitioner corporation. Alleging the presence of foreign elements,
CMI filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the person of CMI and the subject matter of the controversy.
The Labor Arbiter agreed with CMI that the employment contract
was executed in the US “since the letter-offer was under the Texas
letterhead and the acceptance of Complainant was returned there.”
Thus, applying the doctrine of lex loci celebrationis, US laws apply.
Also, applying lex loci contractus, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the
parties did not intend to apply Philippine laws.
The NLRC ruled that the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over the
case when CMI voluntarily submitted to his office’s jurisdiction by
presenting evidence, advancing arguments in support of the legality
of its acts, and praying for reliefs on the merits of the case.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and over the parties.
ISSUE: Whether labor tribunals have jurisdiction over the case.
If a resident defendant is temporarily out of the country, any of the
following modes of service may be resorted to: (1) substituted
service set forth in Sec. 6(7), Rule 14; (2) personal service outside the
country with leave of court, (3) service of publication, with leave of
court; (4) in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Sec 7
includes leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence
with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing
therein.
In this case, the service of summons was made at her residence with
her husband, Alfredo Agudo, acknowledging receipt thereof. Alfredo
was presumably of suitable age and discretion, who was residing in
RULING: Jurisdiction over the person of CMI was acquired through
the coercive process of service of summons. CMI never denied that it
was served with summons. CMI has, in fact, voluntarily appeared and
participated in the proceedings before the courts. Though a foreign
corporation, CMI is licensed to do business in the Philippines and has
a local business address here. The purpose of the law in requiring
that foreign corporations doing business in the country be licensed
to do so, is to subject the foreign corporations to the jurisdiction of
our courts.
NM ROTHSCHILD & SONS VS LEPANTO G.R. No. 175799, November
28, 2011
FACTS: Respondent Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company
(Lepanto) filed with the RTC of Makati City a Complaint against
petitioner NM Rothschild & Sons Limited (Rothschild) praying for a
judgment declaring the loan and hedging contracts between the
parties void for being contrary to Article 2018 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines and for damages. Upon respondent’s (plaintiff’s) motion,
the RTC authorized respondent’s counsel to personally bring the
summons and Complaint to the Philippine Consulate General in
Sydney, Australia for the latter office to effect service of summons on
Rothschild. Rothschild filed a Special Appearance With Motion to
Dismiss praying for the dismissal of the Complaint on the ground,
among others: (a) the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the
person of petitioner (Rothschild) due to the defective and improper
service of summons.
The RTC issued an Order denying the Motion to Dismiss and ruled
that there was a proper service of summons through the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
ISSUE: W/N there was proper service of summons.
RULING: No. The service of summons to petitioner through the DFA
by the conveyance of the summons to the Philippine Consulate
General in Sydney, Australia was clearly made pursuant to Section
17, Rule 14 which provides for the rules on extraterritorial service.
Undoubtedly, extraterritorial service of summons applies only where
the action is in rem or quasi in rem, but not if an action is in
personam.
The Complaint in the case at bar is an action to declare the loan and
Hedging Contracts between the parties void with a prayer for
damages. It is therefore an action in personam.
Since the action involved in the case at bar is in personam and since
the defendant, petitioner Rothschild/Investec, does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines, the Philippine courts cannot try any
case against it because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction
over its person unless it voluntarily appears in court.
YU VS YU G.R. NO. 200072, JUNE 20, 2016
FACTS: Philip Yu and Viveca Lim Yu were married in 1984. However,
in 1993, Viveca left their home together with their children and filed
a Petition for Legal Separation against her husband for repeated
physical violence, grossly abusive conduct, sexual infidelity, and
attempt on her life. Philip denied the accusations and prayed in his
Counterclaim for the declaration of nullity of their marriage.
However, in 2007, Philip moved for the dismissal of his counterclaim
for nullity of marriage in the Legal Separation case and was granted
by the Pasig RTC. The same court, in 2009, rendered a decision
dismissing the Petition for Legal Separation on the ground that the
same became moot, with the decision of the RTC of Balayan,
Batangas declaring the nullity of the parties’ marriage.
Viveca was unaware of the proceedings before the Batangas RTC.
Thus, she filed before the CA, a Petition for Annulment of Judgment
of the said RTC’s decision. According to Viveca, jurisdiction over her
person did not properly vest since she was not duly served with
Summons. She alleged that she was deprived of her right to due
process when Philip fraudulently declared that her address was still
at their conjugal home, when he clearly knew that she was in the
USA.
Philip contends that Viveca was duly served summons by publication
and by sending a copy of the summons to the defendant’s last
known address.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Batangas RTC validly acquired jurisdiction
when Summons was duly served to the respondent by publication.
RULING: NO. Jurisdiction was not properly acquired. Under Section
15 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, a defendant who is a
non-resident and is not found in the country may be served with
summons by extraterritorial service when the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiff.
It is undisputed that when Philip filed the Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage, an action which affects his personal status,
Viveca was already residing in the United States of America. Thus,
extraterritorial service of summons is the proper mode by which
summons may be served.
Philip cannot be allowed to feign ignorance to the fact that Viveca
had already intentionally abandoned their conjugal abode and that
of all the addresses that Viveca resided at, their conjugal home is her
least recent address. In fact, it may very well be considered as the
address she is least likely to be found considering the circumstances
in which she left the same. There is, therefore, no reason for Philip to
assume, in good faith, that said address is in fact Viveca's "last
known address.”
CARSON REALTY VS RED ROBIN SECURITY G.R. No. 225035,
February 08, 2017
FACTS: Santos filed a complaint for a sum of money against Carson.
Carson's legal counsel, Atty. Roxas, filed an appearance and motion
with the court, acknowledging that the Summons was served and
requesting a 15-day extension to file a responsive pleading. However,
rather than filing a response pleading, Atty. Roxas filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, claiming that the Summons was not served on
any of the officers or personnel designated to receive it. Respondent
Santos then moved to declare the defendant in default. This was
granted by the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Carson.
RULING: YES, RTC acquired jurisdiction over Carson through its
voluntary appearance before the court.
The Supreme Court held that in any event, even if the Court concede
the invalidity of the substituted service, such is of little significance in
view of the fact that the RTC had already acquired jurisdiction over
Carson early on due to its voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of
the court.
Jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either
through the service of summons upon them or through their
voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority,
as provided in Section 23, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
Therefore, by securing the affirmative relief of additional time to file
its responsive pleading, Carson effectively voluntarily submitted to
the jurisdiction of the RTC.
SAROL VS SPS DIAO G.R. No. 244129, December 09, 2020
FACTS: Sarol had a property that encroached on Sps Diao’s property.
Sarol is already residing in Germany. Spouses Diao filed a complaint
seeking to reconvey the overlapped area of 464 square meters.
In the course of the proceedings, the summons was not properly
served to Sarol on the ground that she is out of the country and her
last known address was not correctly identified.
For this reason, the RTC directed service of summons on Sarol by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of
Dumaguete and in the Province of Negros Oriental pursuant to
Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court on extraterritorial service of
summons.
Sarol failed to file any pleadings with the RTC was declared in default
and the Order became final and executory allowing Spouses Diao to
present their evidence ex-parte.
MANOTOC VS CA G.R. No. 130974, August 16, 2006
FACTS: Mrs. Agapita Trajano sought the enforcement of a foreign
judgment rendered by the US District Court of Hawaii against Ma.
Imelda M. Manotoc (Imee Marcos) for the wrongful death of Mr.
Archimedes Trajano committed by military intelligence in the
Philippines allegedly working for Manotoc. The RTC issued summons
for Manotoc addressed at Alexandra Homes, Pasig. It was served on
a Macky dela Cruz described as a caretaker of her unit. Manotoc
failed to file her answer and was declared in default. Manotoc, at
that time, was in Singapore.
ISSUE: W/N there was valid substituted service.
RULING: No. A meticulous scrutiny of the aforementioned Return
readily reveals the absence of material data on the serious efforts to
serve the Summons on petitioner Manotoc in person. It cannot be
determined how many times, on what specific dates, and at what
hours of the day the attempts were made. Given the fact that the
substituted service of summons may be assailed, as in the present
case, by a Motion to Dismiss, it is imperative that the pertinent facts
and circumstances surrounding the service of summons be described
with more particularity in the Return or Certificate of Service as
required under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5.
Granting there was adequate description, there is still a serious
nonconformity from the requirement that the summons must be left
with a “person of suitable age and discretion.”The caretaker, is not a
person of sufficient discretion residing therein.
ISSUE: W/N the RTC has jurisdiction over petitioner.
VALMONTE VS CA G.R. No. 108538 January 22, 1996
RULING: The proper service of summons is important because it
serves to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or
respondent, or to notify said person of the action filed against them
and to afford an opportunity to be heard on the claims made against
them. Logically, in order to effect the proper service of summons it is
crucial to furnish the correct address of the defendant or respondent
in a complaint. The foregoing is in consonance with the doctrine of
due process. A violation of this due process would be a jurisdictional
defect. Thus, absent the proper service of summons, the trial court
does not acquire jurisdiction and renders null and void all
subsequent proceedings and issuances in relation to the case.
EXPRESS PADALA VS OCAMPO G.R. No. 202505, Sept 06, 2017
FACTS: Ocampo was hired by BDO Remittance as a processor in its
principal office in Italy. She was convicted for misappropriating the
sum of €24,035.60 by falsifying invoices of money payments. BDO
filed for a recognition of foreign judgment in PH.
Summons were served in her local address in Tanauan, Batangas but
the caretaker (uncle) said that Ocampo is already in Italy. After
Ocampo failed to file an answer, she was declared in default, and
evidence was presented ex parte.
ISSUE: W/N substituted service was proper when respondent already
lives in Italy?
RULING: No. Since Ocampo’s whereabouts are unknown and cannot
be ascertained by diligent inquiry the service of summons may be
effected only by publication.
FACTS: Petitioners Lourdes and Alfredo both reside in the US.
Lourdes is a foreign resident while Alfredo is a lawyer who holds
office in Manila.
Respondent Dimalanta filed an action for partition against the
spouses. Summons were served on Alfredo. Alfredo accepted his
summons but not for his wife on the ground that he was not
authorized. Lourdes was declared in default.
ISSUE: W/N Lourdes was validly served with summons.
RULING: No. There was no valid service of summons. The action
herein is in the nature of an action quasi in rem. Such an action is
essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendant’s interest in a
specific property and not to render a judgment against him. As
petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a nonresident who is not found in
the Philippines, service of summons on her must be in accordance
with the rules on extraterritorial service. (Sec 17, Rule 14)
GESOLGON VS CYBERONE G.R. NO. 210741. OCTOBER 14, 2020
FACTS:
Petitioners Gesolgon and Santos were hired as CSR by CyberOne AU,
an Australian company. They were asked to be dummy directors of
CyperOne PH. Their salaries were paid by both AU and PH although
there was no evidence showing AU and PH are one and the same
entity.
After some time, Mikrut, the CEO of both AU and PH reduced their
salaries and made them choose to revert back to being CSRs.
Petitioners filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal against CyberOne
AU through CyberOne PH.
ISSUE: W/N the court acquired jurisdiction over CyberOne AU.
RULING: No. CyberOne AU and CyberOne PH are two separate
entities. CyberOne AU is a foreign corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Australia and is not licensed to do business in the
Philippines. CyberOne AU did not appoint and authorize respondents
CyberOne PH, a domestic corporation, and Mikrut, the Managing
Director of CyberOne AU and a stockholder of CyberOne PH, as its
agents in the Philippines to act on its behalf. Also, it was not shown
that CyberOne AU is doing business in the Philippines. There was no
way to acquire jurisdiction over CyberOne AU unless it voluntarily
submits itself in court.
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
HASEGAWA VS KITAMURA
Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is
conferred by the sovereign authority which establishes and organizes
the court. It is given only by law and in the manner prescribed by
law. It is further determined by the allegations of the complaint
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the
claims asserted therein. To succeed in its motion for the dismissal of
an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim,
the movant must show that the court or tribunal cannot act on the
matter submitted to it because no law grants it the power to
adjudicate the claims.
SAUDIA VS CA
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.
FORUM OF NON CONVENIENS
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in
conflicts-of-laws cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction
where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the
parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.
It can also be defined as a discretionary power that allows the court
to dismiss a case when another court or forum is much suited to
hear the case.
HOW TO DETERMINE THE CONVENIENT FORUM
A Philippine court in a conflict-of-laws case may assume jurisdiction if
it chooses to do so, provided that the following requisites are met:
(a.) that the Philippine Court is one to which parties may
conveniently resort
(b.) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent
decision as to the law and the facts;
(c.) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have the power to
enforce its decision.
NOTE: On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws problem
where the case is filed in a Philippine court and where the court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties and the res, it may or
can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict-of-laws or the
convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. This is an
exercise of the sovereign prerogative of the country where the case
is filed. (RAYTHEON V. ROUZIE)
Moreover, dismissal on account of forum non conveniens is a
fundamentally discretionary matter. It is, therefore, not a matter for
a defendant to foist upon the court at his or her own convenience;
rather, it must be pleaded at the earliest possible opportunity.
(SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES V. REBESENCIO)
PUYAT V. ZABARTE, G.R. No. 141536, 26 Feb 2001
Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the parties,
also weigh heavily in favor of the RTC Quezon City assuming
jurisdiction.
CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA VS CA
The Court of Appeals explained that jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the
complaint and the law. Since the case filed by Basso is a termination
dispute that is "undoubtedly cognizable by the labor tribunals", the
Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had jurisdiction to rule on the merits of
the case.
That the employment contract of Basso was replete with references
to US laws, and that it originated from and was returned to the US,
do not automatically preclude our labor tribunals from exercising
jurisdiction to hear and try this case.
This case stemmed from an illegal dismissal complaint. The Labor
Code, under Article 217, clearly vests original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving termination disputes
to the Labor Arbiter. Hence, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
FACTS: Ron Zabarte commenced an action to enforce the money
judgment rendered by the Superior Court for the State of California.
Puyat filed his Answer with the following special and affirmative
defenses:
1. The Superior Court for the State of California did not properly
acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of and over the persons
involved in this case.
2. The Judgment on Stipulation for Entry in Judgment in the case is
null and void and unenforceable in the Philippines.
The RTC a quo issued an Order granting Zabarte’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and likewise granting Puyat ten (10) days to
submit opposing affidavits, after which the case would be deemed
submitted for resolution. Puyat filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the aforesaid Order. Subsequently Puyat filed a Motion to Dismiss on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
and forum-non-conveniens.
In his Opposition to the Motion, Zabarte contended that Puyat could
no longer question the jurisdiction of the lower court on the ground
that Puyat’s Answer had failed to raise the issue of jurisdiction.
ISSUE: WON the principle of forum non conveniens is applicable in
this case.
RULING: NO. Under the principle of forum non conveniens, even if
the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by law, courts may
nonetheless refuse to entertain a case for any of the following
practical reasons:
1) The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided
elsewhere, either because the main aspects of the case transpired in
a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their residence
there;
2) The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum[,] a
practice known as forum shopping[,] merely to secure procedural
advantages or to convey or harass the
defendant;
3) The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non-residents
or aliens when the docket may already be overcrowded;
4) The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the
right sought to be maintained; and
The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.
None of the aforementioned reasons barred the RTC from exercising
its jurisdiction. In the present action, there was no more need for
material witnesses, no forum shopping or harassment of petitioner,
no inadequacy in the local machinery to enforce the foreign
judgment, and no question raised as to the application of any foreign
law.
Authorities agree that the issue of whether a suit should be
entertained or dismissed on the basis of the above-mentioned
principle depends largely upon the facts of each case and on the
sound discretion of the trial court. 28 Since the present action
lodged in the RTC was for the enforcement of a foreign judgment,
there was no need to ascertain the rights and the obligations of the
parties based on foreign laws or contracts. The parties needed
only to perform their obligations under the Compromise Agreement
they had entered into.
RAYTHEON V. ROUZIE, G.R. No. 162894, 26 February 2008
FACTS: BMSI hired Rouzie, an American citizen, as representative to
negotiate sales of services in the PH. Rozie filed an action for
damages before the RTC La Union (where he was a resident) against
Raytheon for the nonpayment of commissions due him. He averred
that BMSI, Rust, and Raytheon had combined & functioned as one
company. Raytheon sought dismissal on the grounds of failure to
state cause of action and forum non conveniens.
ISSUE: W/N this case can be dismissed on the ground of forum non
conveniens.
RULING: No. The propriety of dismissing a case based on the
principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination;
hence, it is more properly considered as a matter of defense. While it
is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming
jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are
established, to determine whether special circumstances require the
court’s desistance.
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES V. REBESENCIO, G.R. No. 198587,
14 January 2015
FACTS: SAUDIA hired respondents as flight attendants. They were
separated from service on the account that they were pregnant. A
case on illegal dismissal was filed before the Labor Arbiter. Saudia
asserts that stipulations set in the Cabin Attendant contracts require
the application of the laws of Saudi Arabia. It insists that the need to
comply with these stipulations calls into operation the doctrine of
forum non conveniens and, in turn, makes it necessary for Philippine
tribunals to refrain from exercising jurisdiction.
ISSUE: W/N the case should be dismissed on the ground of forum
non conveniens.
RULING: NO. Forum non conveniens, like the rules of forum
shopping, litis pendentia, and res judicata, is a means of addressing
the problem of parallel litigation. While the rules of forum shopping,
litis pendentia, and res judicata are designed to address the problem
of parallel litigation within a single jurisdiction, forum non
conveniens is a means devised to address parallel litigation arising in
multiple jurisdictions. On the matter of pleading forum non
conveniens, the court stated the rule, thus: Forum non conveniens
must not only be clearly pleaded as a ground for dismissal; it must be
pleaded as such at the earliest possible opportunity. Otherwise, it
shall be deemed waived.
Forum non conveniens finds no application and does not operate to
divest Philippine tribunals of jurisdiction and to require the
application of foreign law.
BANK OF AMERICA VS CA GR 120135 MARCH 31, 2003
FACTS: The Litonjuas were engaged in the shipping business. Bank of
America offered them a loan which allowed them to acquire more
ships. The operation and the funds derived therefrom were placed
under the complete and exclusive control and disposition of the
petitioners.
Litonjuas filed a complaint to the RTC claiming that BA, as trustees,
failed to fully render an account of their income and the subsequent
foreclosure sale. BA filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum
non conveniens and lack of cause of action.
ISSUE: W/N there is grounds for forum non conveniens.
RULING: No. The doctrine of forum non conveniens should not be
used as a ground for a motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of
the Rules of Court does not include said doctrine as a ground.
This Court further ruled that while it is within the discretion of the
trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it
should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine
whether special circumstances require the court’s desistance; and
that the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle of
forum non conveniens requires a factual determination, hence it is
more properly considered a matter of defense.
MANILA HOTEL V. NLRC, G.R. No. 120077, 13 October 2000
Marcelo Santos was an overseas worker employed as a printer in
Oman. MHIC trained the personnel and staff of the Palace Hotel. He
was subsequently directly hired by the Palace Hotel, Beijing, and
later terminated due to retrenchment.
After his repatriation, he demanded full compensation pursuant to
the employment agreement. He filed a complaint of illegal dismissal
before the Labor Arbiter, and appealed before the NLRC. Petitioners
questioned the jurisdiction
ISSUE: W/N the NLRC is an inconvenient forum.
RULING: Yes. The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum. The main
aspects of the case transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the
case involves purely foreign elements. The only link that the
Philippines has with the case is that Santos is a Filipino citizen. The
Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations. Not all cases
involving our citizens can be tried here.
The inconvenience is propounded by the fact that the proper
defendants, the Palace Hotel and MHICL, are not nationals of the
Philippines. Neither are they “doing business in the Philippines.”
Likewise, the main witnesses are not residents of the Philippines.
Neither can an intelligent decision be made as to the law governing
the employment contract as such was perfected in foreign soil. This
calls to force the application of the principle of lex loci contractus.
Neither can the NLRC determine the facts surrounding the alleged
illegal dismissal as all acts complained of took place in Beijing, China.
The NLRC was not in a position to determine whether the
Tiannanmen Square incident truly adversely affected operations of
the Palace Hotel as to justify Santos’ retrenchment.
Even assuming that a proper decision could be reached by the NLRC,
such would not have a binding effect against the employer, the
Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel is a corporation incorporated under
the laws of China and was not even served with summons. Even if
NLRC was the proper forum, the decision cannot be sustained.
Also, no employer-employee relationship, so LA cannot take
jurisdiction.
NAVIDA V. JUDGE DIZON, G.R. No. 125078, 30 May 2011
FACTS: ​A number of personal injury suits were filed in different Texas
state courts by citizens of twelve foreign countries, including the
Philippines. They sought damages for injuries they allegedly
sustained from their exposure to DBCP, a chemical used to kill words
while working on farms in foreign countries. Defendants prayed for
dismissal of all actions under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Pursuant to such order, Filipino petitioners filed a civil action before
the RTC of Gensan and Davao.
The injuries and illnesses, which NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al.,
allegedly suffered resulted from their exposure to DBCP while they
were employed in the banana plantations located in the Philippines
or while they were residing within the agricultural areas also located
in the Philippines.
The RTCs are convenient forums in this case because of the
following:
First, plaintiff claimants are all residents of the Philippines, either in
General Santos City or in Davao City.
Second, the specific areas where they were allegedly exposed to the
chemical DBCP are within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts a
quo wherein NAVIDA, et al., and ABELLA, et al., initially filed their
claims for damages.
Third, the testimonial and documentary evidence from important
witnesses, such as doctors, co- workers, family members and other
members of the community, would be easier to gather in the
Philippines.
PACIFIC V. SCHONFELD, G.R. No. 166920, 19 February 2007
FACTS: PCIJ, a foreign corp with principal office in Japan, decided to
engage in consultancy services for water and sanitation in the
Philippines. Schonfeld, a Canadian, was employed by PCIJ as Sector
Manager of PPI. as Sector Manager of PPI. His salary was to be paid
partly by PPI and PCIJ. His status in the PH is resident alien.
A year later, he received a letter of termination. He filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal against petitioners with the Labor Arbiter.
Petitioner contended that PH is an inconvenient forum and that
under lex loci contractus, complaint should be filed in Japan.
ISSUE: W/N Labor Arbiter and NLRC have jurisdictions.
RULING: Yes. Stipulations regarding venue while considered valid and
enforceable, do not, as a rule, supersede the general rules set forth
in Rule 4 of the ROC in the absence of qualifying words. They are
merely an agreement of additional forum, not as limiting venue to
the specified place. They are not exclusive, but permissive.
The bare fact that respondent is a Canadian citizen and was a
repatriate does not warrant the application of the principle of forum
non-conveniens for the following reasons:
First. The Labor Code of the Philippines does not include forum non
conveniens as a ground for the dismissal of the complaint.
Second. The propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle
requires a factual determination; hence, it is properly considered as
defense.
ISSUE: W/N RTCs in this case are convenient forums.
Third. In Bank of America, NT&SA, Bank of America International,
Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that PH court may assume if
requisites have been met. (Parties, Position, Power).
RULING: Yes, because the tortious act alleged in this case occurred in
the Philippines and that pieces of evidence are available in the
Philippines.
CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA, INC. V. JOSEPH BASSO, G.R. NOS.
178382-83, 23 September 2015
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court in a
conflict-of-laws case may assume jurisdiction if it chooses to do so,
provided, that the following requisites are met:
(1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
conveniently resort to;
(2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent
decision as to the law and the facts; and
(3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce
its decision.
WHICH LAW WILL THE COURT APPLY?
1.
2.
AS A PROCESS
a. CHARACTERIZATION/DOCTRINE
QUALIFICATION
i.
LEGAL CATEGORY
ii.
CONNECTING FACTORS
iii.
SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURAL
AS A CONTRACTUAL STIPULATION
a. APPLY INTERNAL LAW
b. APPLY FOREIGN LAW
OF
PHILSEC V. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 103493, 19 June 1997
FACTS: Private respondent 1488, Inc. sued petitioners PHILSEC,
AYALA, and ATHONA in the United States for payment of the balance
and for damages for breach of contract and for fraud allegedly
perpetrated by petitioners in misrepresenting the marketability of
the shares of stock delivered to 1488, Inc. under the Agreement.
While the Civil Case was pending in the United States, petitioners
filed a complaint “For Sum of Money with Damages and Writ of
Preliminary Attachment” against private respondents in the RTC
Makati.
AS A PROCESS: Characterization/Doctrine of Qualification
Characterization is the "process of deciding whether or not the facts
relate to the kind of question specified in a conflict's rule.The purpose
of “characterization” is to enable the forum to select the proper law.
(Saudia vs CA)
I.
LEGAL CATEGORY
Factual situation = legal category.
The characterization of the factual situation.
Ducat moved to dismiss the Civil Case in the RTC-Makati on the
grounds of, among others, forum non conveniens.
ISSUE: W/N forum non conveniens is proper ground for motion to
dismiss.
RULING: No. First, a MTD is limited to the grounds under Rule 16,
sec.1, which does not include forum non conveniens. The propriety
of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual
determination, hence, it is more properly considered a matter of
defense.
Second, while it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain
from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after
“vital facts are established, to determine whether special
circumstances” require the court’s desistance.
CHOICE OF LAW
What kind of case am I dealing with? Is this a criminal
case? Succession? Property case?
GIBBS v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. L-35694,
December 23, 1933
FACTS: Allison Gibbs and his wife Eva Gibbs are both Californian
citizens and domiciled therein. They acquired lands in the
Philippines. When Eva died, Allison requested that Phil. properties be
transferred to him by virtue of California law that the community
property of spouses will belong absolutely to the surviving spouse,
when the other dies.
ISSUE: W/N this is a case of succession or property issue.
Factual Characterization: Lex Rei Sitae. Under this broad principle,
the nature and extent of the title which vested in Mrs. Gibbs at the
time of the acquisition of the community lands here in question
must be determined in accordance with the lex rei sitae.
It is admitted that the Philippine lands here in question were
acquired as community property of the conjugal partnership of the
appellee and his wife. Under the law of the Philippine Islands, she
was vested of a title equal to that of her husband.
It results that the wife of the appellee was, by the law of the
Philippine Islands, vested of a descendible interest, equal to that of
her husband, in the Philippine lands, from the date of their
acquisition to the date of her death. That appellee himself believed
that his wife was vested of such a title and interest in manifest from
the second of said certificates introduced by him in evidence, in
which it is certified that "the spouses Allison D. Gibbs and Eva
Johnson Gibbs are the owners in fee simple of the conjugal lands
therein described." Thus, there is a descendible interest in the lands
that has transmitted to her heirs by virtue of inheritance and is liable
for the payment of inheritance tax.
Note: In Gibbs v. Government, the Court applied here the single
aspect method or the traditional method. Supreme Court here
applied the single aspect method as it categorized the facts by
stating that it is not a succession issue but a mere property issue
under our law the conflict rule is lex rei sitae.
II.
A.
CONNECTING FACTORS
(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.
Single Factor or Traditional Approach
SAUDI ARABIA AIRLINES V. CA, G.R. No. 122191, 8 October 1998
Test Factors | Connecting Factors| Point of Contact (Saudia vs CA)
(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, the locus 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. The lex 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.
SAUDI ARABIA AIRLINES V. CA, G.R. No. 122191, 8 October 1998
Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving
torts (legal category), 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,
the court finds that the Philippines is the situs of the tort. 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 overall harm or the totality of the alleged injury
to the person, reputation, social standing and human rights of the
complainant, had lodged.
As already discussed, there is basis for the claim that overall 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.
Prescinding from this premise that the Philippines is the situs of the
tort complained 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.
2. Interest Analysis
Factual contacts alone do not determine the outcome of the case
unless they reflect a state policy which would be advanced by
application of the substantive law.
3. Comparative Impairment
The subordination of the state objective which would be least
impaired.
4. Functional Analysis
Looked into the general policies of the state beyond those reflected
in its substantive laws and to policies and values relating to the
effective and harmonious intercourse between states (e.g.
reciprocity, effectiveness, etc.)
5. Choice-influencing Considerations
(1) Predictability of results;
(2) Maintenance of interstate and international order;
(3) Simplification of the judicial task;
(4) Application of the better rule of law; &
(5) Advancement of the forum’s governmental interests.
III.
A.
B.
B.
Multi-aspect or Modern Approach
1. State of the Most Significant Relationship Rule (Saudia vs CA)
The following contacts are to be taken into account and evaluated
according to their relative importance with respect to the particular
issue:
C.
SUBSTANTIVE-PROCEDURAL
Substantive
When the conflict in laws pertains to a substantive matter,
courts mostly go by lex loci or the law of the place where
the cause of action arose.
Procedural
When the conflict in laws pertains to a procedural matter,
courts mostly go by lex fori or the law of the forum.
Sui Generis
Law on Prescription of actions is Sui Generis in Conflicts of
Law in the sense that it may be viewed either as procedural
or substantive, depending on the characterization given
such a law. (CADALIN v. POEA G.R. No. 10477) (LWV
CONSTRUCTION v. DUPO G.R. No. 172342)
●
●
●
●
If classified as substantive - Lex Loci
If classified as procedural - Lex Fori
If there is a borrowing statute - Lex Loci
If the borrowing statute contravenes public
policy - Lex Fori
CADALIN V. POEA, G.R. No. 104776, 5 December 1994
FACTS: Bienvenido Cadalin, on behalf of 728 OCWs instituted a class
suit with POEA for money claims arising from recruitment by AIBC
(domestic corp) on behalf of its foreign principal BRII (Texas based).
NLRC ruled that the prescriptive period for the filing of claims was
three years based on Labor Code, not 10 years as provided in Art
1144 of the Civil Code, nor one year as provided in the Amiri Decree
(for complaints filed by Bahrain workers)
ISSUE: W/N the Philippine law should govern in the prescriptive
period. If yes, which code to follow?
HELD: Philippine Law - 10 years as per Art 1144 of Civil Code.
RULING: 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.
LAW ON PRESCRIPTION: (you have to characterize the foreign law
first as procedural or substantial) 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.
Exception: Borrowing Statute- 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. 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.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: if it is against public policy
(constitutional mandate of protection of labor) The courts of the
forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's
public. Public policy considerations should be observed. In the case
of Cadalin vs POEA, 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.
LWV CONSTRUCTION V. DUPO, G.R. No. 172342, 13 July 2009
FACTS: LWV Construction, a domestic corp recruited Dupo as Civil
Structural Superintendent to work in Saudi Arabia for its principal
foreign company MMG. Dupo resigned in July 1999 and filed a
complaint for payment of service award before the NLRC in Dec
2000. LWV contended that the action must be filed within one year
from termination in accordance with Art. 1310 of the Saudi Labor
Law.
ISSUE: W/N the action has prescribed.
RULING: No. What applies is Art 291 of the Labor Code which
provides that all money claims arising from employer-employee
relations shall be filed within 3 years from the time the cause of
action accrued.
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 our considered view, respondent’s complaint was filed
well within the three-year prescriptive period under Article 291 of
our Labor Code. This point, however, has already been mooted
by our finding that respondent’s service award had been paid,
albeit the payroll termed such payment as severance pay.
AS A CONTRACTUAL STIPULATION
ARTICLE 1306 (New Civil Code). The contracting parties may establish
such stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions as they may deem
convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy.
Principle of Autonomy in Choice of Law
The principle of autonomy of contracts allows parties to just stipulate
the law that shall govern their contractual relations.
Requisites:
[a] There Should be Substantial Relationships to the Parties and to
the Transactions.
[b] Should Not be Contrary to the Fundamental Policy of the State
a. Apply Internal Law
- a matter of sovereignty
When courts are constrained to apply internal law:
●
●
●
When the conflicts rule itself so provides.
When the foreign law is not properly pleaded and proved.
When the case in question falls under any of the basic
exceptions to the application of foreign law.
b. Apply Foreign Law
Exceptions to application of foreign law:
●
●
●
●
If the foreign law is not properly pleaded and proven.
(Doctrine of processual presumption applies).
When the foreign law is purely fiscal or administrative in
nature.
When the foreign law is penal in nature.
When the foreign law involves procedural matters.
●
●
●
●
If the foreign law is contrary to an important public policy
of the forum.
When the application of the foreign lawn will work
undeniable injustice to the citizens of the forum.
When the case involves real or personal property situated
in the forum.
When the application of the foreign law might endanger
the vital interest of the state.
CADALIN V. POEA, G.R. No. 104776, 5 December 1994
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.
BANK OF AMERICA NT AND ASIA V. AMERICAN REALTY
CORPORATION, G.R. No. 133876, 29 December 1999
FACTS: Petitioner granted multimillion loans to corporate borrowers.
ARC was then a third-party mortgagor as additional security for the
restructured loans. The parcels of land were located in Bulacan.
When the borrowers defaulted, petitioner bank filed collections
cases in foreign courts. It also filed an extrajudicial foreclosure in
Bulacan where REM was sold in public auction. Respondents filed
action for damages due to foreclosing REM despite pending civil suits
before the foreign courts.
Petitioner contends that under English Law (the governing law in
their agreements), the mortgagee does not satisfy its security
interest by simply filing civil actions for sums of money.
ISSUE: W/N English Law is applicable. NO
W/N the act of filing a collection suit constituted a waiver of the
remedy of foreclosure. YES
RULING:
1. When the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound
and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law,
judgment order shall not be applied.
The public policy sought to be protected in the instant case is the
principle embedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting of a
single cause of action under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover,
foreign law should not be applied when its application would cause
undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum.
2. In the absence of express statutory provisions, a mortgage creditor
may institute against the mortgage debtor either a personal action or
debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. In other words, he
may pursue either of the two remedies, but not both.
In the case at bar, petitioner only has one cause of action which is
non-payment of the debt. Nevertheless, alternative remedies are
available for its enjoyment and exercise. Petitioner then may opt to
exercise only one of two remedies so as not to violate the rule
against splitting a cause of action.
HERALD BLACK DACASIN, Petitioner, Vs. SHARON DEL MUNDO
DACASIN
FACTS: Herald Dacasin, American and respondent Sharon del Mundo
Dacasin, Filipino were married in Manila in 1994. They have a
daughter, Stephanie. Sharon obtained divorce in Illinois in June 1999.
She was awarded with sole custody of Stephanie. In 2002, the two
executed a contract for joint custody. In 2004, Herald filed a case
against Sharon alleging that she had exercised sole custody contrary
to their agreement. Petitioner contends that the agreement novated
the valid divorce decree and it was independent thereof.
ISSUE: W/N the agreement was valid and Phil. court should enforce
such.
RULING: No, the agreement contravenes Philippine law. It is based
on our public policy that mothers should never be separated from
their young children, seven years and below, to avoid a tragedy
where a mother has seen her baby torn away from her. Dacasin
stated that this is a matter of wisdom, not a matter of enforceability
or validity.
In this jurisdiction, parties to a contract are free to stipulate the
terms of agreement subject to the minimum ban on stipulations
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
Otherwise, the contract is denied legal existence, deemed “inexistent
and void from the beginning.”
At the time the Agreement was executed, Stephanie was under
seven and the parties were no longer married under US laws. The
relevant law on child custody for spouses separated in fact or in law
(Art 213 of the Family Code) provides, “no child under seven years of
age shall be separated from the mother...” Clearly, the Agreement’s
object to establish a post-divorce joint custody regime between the
parties contravenes Philippine law.
PROOF OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT, PROCESS, & EXCEPTION
Gen. Rule: The Philippine courts do not take judicial cognizance of
foreign law.
Exc: It must be properly pleaded and proved. When not properly
pleaded and proved, or when pleaded but not proved, the Doctrine
of Processual Presumption shall apply.
Doctrine of Processual Presumption
Absent any evidence, the foreign law is presumed to be the same as
the Philippine law.
EDI-STAFF BUILDERS INTL. V. NLRC and ELEAZAR S. GRAN, G.R. No.
145587, 26 October 2007
FACTS: Gran was hired by EDI to work for OAB in Saudi Arabia.
There was a discrepancy in his monthly salary. When he was
terminated, he received his final pay, still with discrepancy.
However, he signed a Declaration releasing OAB from financial
obligation. He filed in Ph court an action for underpaymet of
wages and illegal dismissal. EDI questioned the legality of the
awar and relies on the Declaration as well as the Employment
Contract which states that Saudi Laws should apply.
ISSUE: W/N Philippine Labor Laws should be applied. YES.
W/N the Declaration & Quitclaim is valid in the PH. NO.
RULING:
Gen Rule: In cases involving OFWs, the rights and obligations
among and between the OFW, the local recruiter/agent, and
the foreign employer/principal are governed by the
employment contract.
In the present case, the employment contract signed by Gran
specifically states that Saudi Labor Laws will govern matters
not provided for in the contract (e.g. specific causes for
termination, termination procedures, etc.). Being the law
intended by the parties (lex loci intentiones) to apply to the
contract, Saudi Labor Laws should govern all matters relating
to the termination of the employment of Gran.
However, in international law, the party who wants to have a
foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of
proving the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a
question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the
judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign
law. He is presumed to know only domestic or forum law.
Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not prove the pertinent
Saudi laws on the matter; thus, the International Law doctrine
of presumed-identity approach or processual presumption
comes into play.
Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not
proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as
ours. Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws in determining the
issues.
On the 2nd issue, the Court finds the waiver and quitclaim
null and void. Thus, the Declaration purporting to be a
quitclaim and waiver is unenforceable under Philippine laws
in the absence of proof of the applicable law of Saudi Arabia.
ATCI V. ETCHIN, G.R. No. 178551, 11 October 2010
FACTS: Etchin was hired ATCI on behalf of the Ministry of Public
Health of Kuwait under a 2-yr contract. Under the MOA, all
newly-hired employees should undergo a probationary period. She
was terminated before the end of the 2 yr contract for not having
allegedly passed the probationary period. Etchin filed a complaint of
Illegal Dismissal against ATCI. ATCI contended that Kuwait Laws
govern and that there was no illegal dismissal because Etchin did not
pass probationary period.
ISSUE: W/N Kuwait Laws should apply. NO
W/N the ATCI be held liable for illegal dismissal. YES.
RULING: In the present case, the employment contract signed
by Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor Laws will govern
matters not provided for in the contract. Being the law
intended by the parties (lex loci intentiones) to apply to the
contract, Saudi Labor Laws should govern all matters relating
to the termination of the employment of Gran.
In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign
law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the
foreign law. Instead of submitting a copy of the pertinent
Kuwaiti labor laws duly authenticated and translated by
Embassy officials thereat, as required under the Rules, what
petitioners submitted were mere certifications attesting only
to the correctness of the translations of the MOA and the
termination letter which does not prove at all that Kuwaiti
civil service laws differ from Philippine laws and that under
such Kuwaiti laws, respondent was validly terminated.
Note: Even when applying the Kuwait Laws, the administrative
agency (NLRC) did not find valid termination.
Examples when the foreign law or judgment is not alleged or proven:
a. Affidavit was taken abroad ex parte and the affiant never testified
in an open court;
b. Affidavit that is self-serving and does not state the specific law;
(Hanover vs Guerrero)
c. submissions were mere certifications attesting only to the
correctness of the translations to the MOA and the termination
letter. (Atci vs Etchin)
Who shall prove the foreign law with evidence?
The party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of
proving the law.
Presentation of Evidence
1. Sec 24 & 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court:
●
●
Official publication
Copy attested by an officer having legal custody or
attestation must have an official seal of the attesting
officer.
2. Other Competent Evidence:
●
●
●
Testimony under oath of an attorney-at-law who quoted in
verbatim a section of the law and who stated that the
same was in force at the time the obligations were
contracted;
The foreign law is proven by witnesses testifying in open
court during the trial in the Philippines and quoting the
particular foreign laws sought to be established. (Collector
of Internal Revenue vs Fisher et al)
The court is satisfied of the authenticity of the written
proof offered. Example: mere authentication of the
Chinese Naturalization Law by the Chinese Consulate
General of Manila was held to be competent proof of that
law.
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER V. GUERRERO, G.R. No. 136804, 19
February 2003
FACTS: Guerrero filed a complaint for damages against Hanover in
the Manila. He sought payment of damages for (1) illegally withheld
taxes charged against interests on his checking account with the
Bank; (2) a returned check worth US$18,000.00 due to signature
verification problems; and (3) unauthorized conversion of his
account.
The Bank filed its Answer alleging, inter alia, that by stipulation
Guerrero’s account is governed by New York law and this law does
not permit any of Guerrero’s claims except actual damages. The bank
filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal of
Guerrero’s claims for consequential, nominal, temperate, moral and
exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees on the same ground
alleged in its Answer. The Bank contended that the trial should be
limited to the issue of actual damages. Guerrero opposed the
motion.
The affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney, supported the
Bank’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Alyssa Walden’s
affidavit stated that Guerrero’s New York bank account stipulated
that the governing law is New York law and that this law bars all of
Guerrero’s claims except actual damages. The Philippine Consular
Office in New York authenticated the Walden affidavit.
ISSUE: W/N the bank’s proof of facts to support its motion for
summary judgment may be given affidavit. NO.
RULING: NO. There can be no summary judgment where questions
of fact are in issue or where material allegations of the pleadings are
in dispute. The resolution of whether a foreign law allows only the
recovery of actual damages is a question of fact as far as the trial
court is concerned since foreign laws do not prove themselves in our
courts.
Certain exceptions to this rule were recognized in Asiavest Limited v.
Court of Appeals which held that the testimony under oath of an
attorney-at-law of San Francisco, California, who quoted verbatim a
section of California Civil Code and who stated that the same was in
force at the time the obligations were contracted, as sufficient
evidence to establish the existence of said law.”
In this case, the Walden affidavit was taken abroad ex parte and the
affiant never testified in open court. The Walden affidavit cannot be
considered as proof of New York law on damages not only because it
is self-serving but also because it does not state the specific New
York law on damages.
NORSE MANAGEMENT and PACIFIC SEAMEN SERVICES, INC. V.
NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD HON. CRESCENCIO M. SIDDAYAO,
OSCAR M. TORRES, REBENE C. CARRERA and RESTITUTA C.
ABORDO, G.R. No. L54204, 30 September 1982
FACTS: The deceased, husband of the complainant was employed by
Norse. While at sea, he suffered a stroke and died. In the wife’s
complaint, she argued that the amount of compensation due her
should be based on the law where the vessel is registered which is
Singapore Law. Norse argued that SG law should be applied since
their responsibility was not alleged in the complaint; that no proof of
existence of Workmen’s Insurance Law and the Seamen Board
cannot take judicial notice of the law.
ISSUE: W/N the SG law should be applied.
W/N the foreign law needs to be proven in the case.
RULING:
The Employment Agreement between Norse and Abordo stipulated
that “compensation shall be paid to employee in accordance with
and subject to the limitations of the Workmen's Compensation Act of
the Republic of the Philippines or the Workmen's Insurance Law of
registry of the vessel whichever is greater.”
The 30K offer by Norse is in accordance with the Singapore Law.
Article 20, Labor Code of the Philippines, provides that the National
Seamen Board has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters
or cases including money claims, involving employer-employee
relations, arising out of or by virtue of any law or contracts involving
Filipino seamen for overseas employment. Thus, it is safe to assume
that the Board is familiar with pertinent Singapore maritime laws
relative to workmen's compensation. Moreover, the Board may apply
the rule on judicial notice and, "in administrative proceedings, the
technical rules of procedure — particularly of evidence — applied in
judicial trials, do not strictly apply." (Oromeca Lumber Co. Inc. vs.
Social Security Commission, 4 SCRA 1188).
As it is familiar with Singapore Law, the National Seamen Board is
justified in taking judicial notice of and in applying that law.
Note: Quasi-judicial bodies do not strictly follow Rules of Court.
HSBC V. SHERMAN, G.R. No. 72494, 11 August 1989 - read
FACTS: Eastern Book (a company incorporated in SG) was granted by
HSBC SG an overdraft facility of $375k. Sherman, Reloj, And Lowe
(directors) executed a joint and several guarantee in favor of HSBC.
Eastern Book failed to pay its obligations. HSBC demanded payment
of the obligation from private respondents, a complaint for collection
of sum of money was filed before RTC QC. Sherman and Reloj filed a
a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter and defendants.
ISSUE: W/N Phil. courts have jurisdiction over the suit.
RULING: Yes, the controversy stems from the interpretation of a
provision in the Joint and Several Guarantee. While it is true that the
transaction took place in SG and the Guarantee contains a
choice-of-forum clause, the very essence of due process dictates that
the sti[ulation be liberally construed.
One basic principle underlies all rules of jurisdiction in International
Law: A state does not have jurisdiction in the absence of some
reasonable basis for exercising it, whether the proceedings are in
rem, quasi in rem, or in personam. The defense of private
respondents that the complaint should have been filed in SG is based
merely on technicality. They did not even claim, much less prove,
that the filing of the action here will cause them any unnecessary
trouble, damage, or expense. On the other hand, there is no showing
that HSBC filed the action here just to harass private respondents.
The party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of
proving the law, under the doctrine of processual presumption.
The parties did not thereby stipulate that only the courts of
Singapore, to the exclusion of all the rest, had jurisdiction. Neither
did the clause in question operate to divest Philippine courts of
jurisdiction.
The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, hence,
they must not only be alleged; they must be proven. To prove a
foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and
comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN LAWS
CORPUZ V. STO. TOMAS, G.R. No. 186571, 11 August 2010
Rule 39, Section 48 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. The effect of a
judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the
judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing; and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the
judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent
title.
Foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under
our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national
law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or
herself. (Republic v. Orbecido III, supra note 10 at 123 and Garcia v.
Recio, supra note 17 at 448; see also Bayot v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 155635, November 7, 2008, 570 SCRA 472.)
Registration of the foreign divorce decree should be done with
judicial recognition of the foreign judgment
HOW TO ALLEGE & PROVE FOREIGN JUDGMENT
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
PUYAT V. ZABARTE, G.R. No. 141536, 26 Feb 2001
Since the present action lodged in the RTC was for the enforcement
of a foreign judgment, there was no need to ascertain the rights and
the obligations of the parties based on foreign laws or contracts. The
parties needed only to perform their obligations under the
Compromise Agreement they had entered into.
ST. AVIATION V. GRAND AIR, G.R. No. 140288, 23 Oct 2006
FACTS: St. Aviation, an SG based corp, finished the contracted works
by Grand Airways (a domestic corp.) Grand Airways failed to pay. St.
Aviation obtained a judgment by default in SG Court upon failure of
respondent to appear in court despite valid service of summons.
ISSUE: W/N the judgment by default in SG is enforceable in PH.
RULING.
Under the rules of comity, utility and convenience, nations have
established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments
of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected
and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in
different countries.
The Philippine legal system has long ago accepted into its
jurisprudence and procedural rules the viability of an action for
enforcement of foreign judgment, as well as the requisites for such
valid enforcement, as derived from internationally accepted
doctrines.
ATCI V. ETCHIN, G.R. No. 178551, 11 October 2010
Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
Proof either by:
(1) official publications OR
(2) copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the
documents.
If the copies of official records are not kept in the Philippines, these
must be:
(a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or
consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept AND
(b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
FUJIKI V. MARINAY, G.R. No. 196049, 26 June 2013
A recognition of a foreign judgment is not an action to nullify a
marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to recognize the
effectivity of a foreign judgment, which presupposes a case which
was already tried and decided under foreign law.
Philippine courts will only determine
(1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an overriding
public policy in the Philippines; and
(2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to
repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice
to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. If there
is neither inconsistency with public policy nor adequate proof to
repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default, recognize
the foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations.
BPI V. GUEVARA, G.R. No. 167052, 11 March 2015
A judgment or final order of a foreign tribunal cannot be enforced
simply by execution. Such judgment or order merely creates a right
of action, and its non-satisfaction is the cause of action by which a
suit can be brought upon for its enforcement.
Once a foreign judgment is admitted and proven in a Philippine
court, it can only be repelled on grounds external to its merits, i.e.,
"want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact." The rule on limited review embodies
the policy of efficiency and the protection of party expectations, as
well as respecting the jurisdiction of other states.
THE RENVOI PROBLEM
Renvoi - A procedure whereby a jural matter presented is referred by
the Conflict of laws rules of the forum to a foreign state, the Conflict
of laws rule of which in turn refers the matter back to the law of
forum (remission) or a third state (transmission). Coquia, supra at
102
It is sometimes called the “table tennis” theory, as the law is being
referred back and forth from the forum law to the law of the
domicile of the foreign party which involves a conflict of laws rule,
pointing back to the form law as applicable law. Agpalo, supra at 38
It is a French word which means “refer back” or “return.” In
Anglo-American countries, the term used is “remission,” meaning to
refer a matter for consideration or judgment. Sempio-Diy, supra at
102
In jurisdictions which have recognized the use of renvoi in
choice-of-law analysis, it has been employed in cases where the
domiciliary and nationality laws are applied to the individual in issues
involving succession, domestic relations, and real properties. Coquia,
supra at 102
The theory of the doctrine of renvoi is that the court of the forum, in
determining the question before it, must take into account the whole
law of the other jurisdiction, but also its rules as to conflict of laws,
and then apply the law to the actual question which the rules of the
other jurisdiction prescribe.
Ruling: Yes, the Philippine laws on succession should govern.
Accdg to Art. 16 of the NCC, rules on intestate and testamentary
succession shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration.
However, when we applied the California Law, we found that their
law prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens: one for residents
therein and another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions.
Art.946 of the Civil Code of California provides that the place where
personal property is situated is governed by the law of his domicile.
In this case, the place of domicile of the deceased is the Philippines.
Therefore, the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his
acknowledged natural child, the appellant, should be governed by
the Philippine Law. Partition should be made as the Philippine law on
succession provides.
BELLIS V. BELLIS, G.R. No. L-23678, 6 June 1967
Amos Bellis who was a citizen of and was domiciled in Texas, died
testate. He executed a will in the Philippines. Accdg to his will, 120k
shall be given to his three illegitimate children (40k each), and the
rest are divided equally between his seven legitimate children. The
illegitimate children opposed on the ground that they are deprived
of their legitimes.
Issue: W/N the Philippine laws on succession should apply.
W/N renvoi doctrine should apply. NO. Only processial presumption.
Ruling: No. The Texas law should apply. Court ruled that provision in
a foreigner’s will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed
in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is
illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in view of
those matters that Article 10 — now Article 16 — of the Civil Code
states said national law should govern.
Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the
intrinsic validity of his will should be governed by his national law.
Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then his will, which
deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes, is valid.
The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not
entitled to the legitimes under the texas law, which is the national
law of the deceased.
AZNAR V. GARCIA, G.R. No. L-16749, 31 January 1963
Edward Christentens, a Californian citizen, died testate. According to
his will, only Php 3600 is given to Helen Christensen while the rest of
the estate is given to his daughter Lucy Christensen. In his will, he
didn’t acknowledge Helen as his child, but an earlier case declared
that Helen is an acknowledged natural child.Helen opposed the
partition as it deprives her of her legitime.
Issue: W/N the Philippine laws on succession should govern.
PCIB V. ESCOLIN, G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896 September 30,
1975
Linnie Jane Hodges, a married woman and a citizen of Texas, USA,
was a domiciliary of the Philippines at the moment of her death.
With respect to the validity of certain testamentary provisions, she
had made a will in favor of her husband. A question arose as to what
exactly were the laws of Texas on the matter at the precise moment
of her death (for while one group, contended that Texan Law should
result to renvoi, the other group contended that no renvoi was
possible).
Issue: Whether or not the Texas law should apply.
HELD:The Supreme Court held that what the Texas law contains at
the time of Jane Hodges’ death is a question of fact to be resolved by
the evidence that would be presented in the probate court. At the
time of her death, Texas law governs, thus, it would be the law to be
applied (and not said law at any other time).
GIBBS V. GOVERNMENT, GIBBS V. GOVERNMENT OF P.I.,
G.R. No. 35694, 23 December 1933
Allison Gibbs and Eva Johnson Gibbs are both citizens of and
domiciled in California. They have acquired conjugal properties in the
Philippines . Eva Gibbs died, and in accordance to the law of
California, the community property will belong to the surviving
husband without administration. Upn frequent for the issuance of
TCT, ROD refused on the ground that the inheritance tax had not
been paid.
Issue: W/N the lands can be registered without payment of
inheritance tax. (W/N the California Law should apply)
Ruling: No. Inheritance tax must be paid first before registration can
be effected.
Art 10 of NCC: Personal property is subject to the laws of the nation
of the owner thereof; real property to the laws of the country in
which it is situated. Nevertheless, legal and testamentary
successions, in respect to the order of succession as well as to the
amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the
property or the country in which it may be situated.
The foreign law is consulted only in regard to the order of succession
or the extent of the successional rights. As to the descent, alienation,
and transfer, the lex rei sitae principle shall apply.
It is admitted that the Philippine lands here in question were
acquired as community property of the conjugal partnership of the
appellee and his wife. Under the law of the Philippine Islands, she
was vested of a title equal to that of her husband. Article 1407 of the
Civil Code provides:
All the property of the spouses shall be deemed partnership property
in the absence of proof that it belongs exclusively to the husband or
to the wife.
It results that the wife of the appellee was, by the law of the
Philippine Islands, vested of a descendible interest, equal to that of
her husband. The descendible interest of Eva Johnson Gibbs in the
lands aforesaid was transmitted to her heirs by virtue of inheritance
and this transmission plainly falls within the language of section
1536 of Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code which
levies a tax on inheritances.
MICIANO V. BRIMO, G.R. No. L-22595, 1 November 1927
Joseph G. Brimo, a citizen of Turkey, died and left a partition of the
estate. Juan Miciano, the judicial administrator of the estate left,
filed a scheme of partition. However, Andre Brimo, one of the
brothers of the deceased, opposed it. Brimo‘s opposition is based on
the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions
of Joseph Brimo‘s will which are not in accordance with the laws of
his Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in
violation of Article 10 of the Civil Code.
Issue: Whether or not the national law of the testator is the one to
govern his testamentary disposition.
Ruling: Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen, though he declared in his will
that Philippine laws must govern the disposition of his estate;
however, it must not prejudice the heir or legatee of the testator.
Therefore, the testator‘s national law must govern in accordance
with Article 10 of the Civil Code.
However, the institution of legatees in this will is conditional, and the
condition is that the instituted legatees must respect the testator's
will to distribute his property, not in accordance with the laws of his
nationality, but in accordance with the laws of the Philippines. Said
condition is contrary to law because it expressly ignores the
testator's national law when, according to article 10 of the civil Code,
such national law of the testator is the one to govern his
testamentary dispositions.
The provision containing impossible conditions is considered null and
void. All of the remaining clauses of said will with all their
dispositions and requests are perfectly valid and effective, not
appearing that said clauses are contrary to the testator's national
law.
LLORENTE V. CA, G.R. No. 124371, 23 November 2000
Lorenzo N. Llorente and Paula Llorente were married. After
discovering Paula’s illicit affair, he went to the US. He became an
American citizen long before and at the time of: (1) his divorce from
Paula; (2) marriage to Alicia; (3) execution of his will; and (4) death, is
duly established, admitted and undisputed.
In his will, he left a will which provided that his estate will be given to
Alicia and their children. Paula filed for administration of the estate.
Applying the Renvoi doctrine (American law follows the domiciliary
theory), the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Paula.
Issue: W/N the Renvoi doctrine was properly applied.
Ruling: No. The application of Renvoi doctrine is improperly called
for. It is true that as an American citizen, issues arising from these
incidents are necessarily governed by foreign law. (See art. 15,16,
&17.) While the law of New York was not sufficiently proven, in the
same breath it made the categorical, albeit equally unproven
statement that "American law follows the ‘domiciliary theory’ hence,
Philippine law applies when determining the validity of Lorenzo’s
will.
Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from
Lorenzo are issues best proved by foreign law which must be pleaded
and proved. The trial court should note that whatever public policy
or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes,
Congress did not intend to extend the same to the succession of
foreign nationals. Congress specifically left the amount of
successional rights to the decedent's national law. The case is
remanded to RTC to allow proof of foreign law and settle the estate
accordingly.