CONFLICT OF LAWS DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW Second Semester, 2016-2017 Ron P. Salo, LLB, LLM Course Description: The course discusses Private International Law, a part of law which comes into operation whenever the court is faced with a claim that contains a foreign element (a fact, event or transaction that is so clearly connected with a foreign system of law as to necessitate recourse to that system). It has three (3) distinct but interrelated objects. First is the determination of the forum court’s jurisdiction to try the case, and if it has, whether to assume it. Second is the forum court’s choice of the applicable system of law to ascertain the rights of the parties. Third is the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, and deals with the study of situations which justify recognition by the forum court of a judgment rendered by a foreign court or its enforcement.
I.
Definition, Nature, Scope and Sources of Private International Law A. Meaning of “Foreign Law” B. Brief History and Development of Private International Law C. Sources of Private International Law D. Private International Law vs. Public International Law
II.
Jurisdiction A. Definition Hasegawa, et al. vs. Kitamura, G.R. No. 149177, November 23, 2007 B. Types of Judicial Jurisdiction and Bases for its Exercise De Joya vs. Judge Placido C. Marquez, G.R. No. 162416, January 31, 2006 1. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter – Judiciary Act of 1948; Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Rep. Act 7691 Perkins vs. Roxas, G.R. No. 47517, June 27, 1941 Reyes vs. Diaz, G.R. No. L-48754, November 26, 1941 2. Jurisdiction over the Person (Plaintiff & Defendant) – Rule 14, Secs. 6 & 7, 1997 Rules of Court Pantaleon vs. Asuncion, G.R. No. L-13141, May 22, 1959 Gemperle vs. Schenker, G.R. No. L-18164, January 23, 1967 Sequito vs. Letrondo, G.R. No. L-11588, July 20, 1959 1
Jaranilla vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-5629, October 11, 1954 Philsec Investment, et al vs. CA, GR No. 103493, June 19, 1997 3. Jurisdiction over the Res – Pennoyer vs. Neff, 95 US 714 (1878) Mullane vs. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Trustee, et al., 399 US 306 (1950) Shaffer vs. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) 4. Jurisdiction over the Issues of the Case De Joya vs. Judge Placido C. Marquez, G.R. No. 162416, supra. Reyes vs. Diaz, G.R. No. L-48754, supra. Bernabe vs. Vergara, G.R. No. L-48652, September 16, 1942 C. Service of Summons 1. Personal Service or Substituted Service – Rule 14, Sec. 6 & 7, 1997 Rules of Court Pantaleon vs. Asuncion, supra. 2. Service by Publication – Rule 14, Sec. 15, 1997 Rules of Court 3. Extraterritorial Service – Rule 15, Sec. 15, 1997 Rules of Court Davao Light vs. CA, G.R. No. 93262, December 29, 1991 D. Ways of Dealing with a Conflicts of Law Problem 1. Dismiss the Case i.
Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens
Heine vs. New York Insurance Company, 45 F2d 426 (1940) In re: Union Carbide Corporation, 634 F. Supp. 842 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) First Philippine International Bank vs. CA, G.R. No. 115849, January 24, 1996 Manila Hotel Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 120077, October 13, 2000 Hasegawa, et al. vs. Kitamura, supra. (2007) 2. Assume Jurisdiction Hasegawa, et al. vs. Kitamura, supra. (2007) i.
Application of Internal Law
ii. Application of Foreign Law Theories on the Application of Foreign Law Fleumer vs. Hix, G.R. No. L-32636, March 17, 1930 Philippine Trust Co vs. Bohanan, G.R. No. L-12105, January 30, 1960 2
III.
Judicial Choice of Law A. Approaches to Choice of Law 1. Traditional Approaches Gray vs. Gray, 87 N.H. 82 (1934) Alabama Great Southern R.R. Co. vs. Carrol, 97 Ala. 126, 11 So. 803 2. Modern Approaches Auten vs. Auten, 308 N.Y. 155 (1954) Haag vs. Barnes, 9 N.Y. 2d 554 (1961) Babcock vs. Jackson, 12 N.Y. 2d 473 (1963) B. Characterization of the Cause of Action 1. Characterization and the Single Aspect Method – Arts. 15, 16, & 17, NNC Gibbs vs. Gov’t of PI, G.R. No. L-35694, December 23, 1933 Grant vs. Mcauliffe, 41 Cal. 2d 859 (1953) Cadalin vs. POEA Administrator, G.R. No. L-104776 December 5, 1994 2. Depecage Haumschild vs. Continental Casualty, 7 Wis. 2d 130 (1959) C. Renvoi Aznar vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-16749, January 31, 1963 Annesley vs. Annesley, 95 LJ Ch. 404 (1926) University of Chicago vs. Dater, 277 Mich. 653 (1936) Bellis vs. Bellis, G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967 D. Substance and Procedure 1. 2. 3. 4.
Difference between Substance and Procedure Applicable Law on Procedure Applicable Law on Substance Applicable Law on Evidence
E. Personal Law of the Parties 1. Nationality – Art. 15, NCC; Art. 2 Hague Convention on Conflict of Nationality Laws; Article IV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution; RA 8171; RA 9225 Talaroc vs. Uy, G.R. No. L-5397, September 26, 1952 Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999 Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, G.R. Nos. 92191-92 July 30, 1991 Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996 3
2. Domicile – Art. 50, NCC Uytengsu vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-6379, September 29, 1954 Caasi vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88831, November 8, 1990 Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995 Saludo vs. American Express International, G.R. No. 159507, April 19, 2006 Limbona vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 186006, October 16, 2009 3. Residence Uytengsu vs. Republic, supra. Saludo vs. American Express International, supra. Limbona vs. COMELEC, supra. F. Status and Capacity – Arts. 40, 41 & 42, FC; Art. 243, FC as amended by RA 6809; Art. 5, PD 603; Art. 42, NCC Recto vs. Harden, G.R. No. L-22174, July 21, 1967 De Jesus vs. Syquia, G.R. No. L-39110, November 28, 1933 Geluz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961 Insular Government vs. Frank, 13 Phil. 236 (1909) G. Notice and Proof of Foreign Law 1. Extent of Judicial Notice 2. Proof of Foreign Law a. Foreign Law: A Question of Fact b. Proving Foreign Law Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Escolin, G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L27896 March 29, 1974 In re Estate of Johnson, G.R. No. L-12767, November 16, 1918 Miciano vs. Brimo, 50 Phil. 887 (1924). Board of Commissioners (CID) vs. Dela Rosa, G.R. Nos. 95122-23, May 31, 1991 3. Exceptions to the Application of Foreign Law a. Foreign Law is Contrary to an Important Public Policy of the Forum Pakistan International Airlines vs. Ople, G.R. No. 61594, September 28, 1990 b. c. d. e. f. g. h.
Foreign Law is Procedural in Nature Issues are Related to Property (Lex Situs) Foreign Law Pertains to Revenue Foreign Law is Penal in Character Foreign Law is Contrary to Good Morals (Contra Bonos Mores) Application of the Foreign Law will work Injustice to the Citizens of the Forum Application of the Foreign Law might endanger the Vital Interests of the State of the Forum 4
--------------------------------------------MIDTERM EXAMINATION -------------------------------------------------H. Choice of Law Problems 1. Family Relations a. Marriage – Arts. 1, 2, 10, 26 FC; Art. XV, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution i. Extrinsic Validity of Marriage Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, G.R. No. 18081, March 3, 1922 People vs. Mura Dumpo, G.R. No. L-42581,October 2, 1935 Wong Woo Yu vs. Vivo, G.R. No. L-21076, March 31, 1965 ii. Intrinsic Validity of Marriage In Re May’s Estate, 185, N.Y.S. 284 (1920) Rayray vs. Chae Kyung Lee, G.R. No. L-18176, October 26, 1966 b. Divorce and Separation – Art. 26, FC Tenchavez vs. Escano, G.R. No. L-19671, November 29, 1965 Van Dorn vs. Romillo, G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985 Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116 June 30, 1989 Quita vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124862 December 22, 1998 c. Annulment and Declaration of Nullity – Art. 26, FC; Rule 14, Sec. 15, 1997 Rules of Court d. Parental Relations – Arts. 163, 164, 165, 287 and 288, FC e. Status of Children – Arts. 15, 164, 165, FC f.
Adoption – Title VII, FC; RA 8043; RA 8552 Republic vs. CA and Bobiles, G.R. No. 92326 January 24, 1992 Uggi Lindamand Therkelsen vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-21951, November 27, 1964
2. Property – Art. 15, NCC a. Capacity of the party to transfer or acquire property Llantino vs. Co Liong Chong, G.R. No. L-29663, August 20, 1990 Cheesman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74833, January 21, 1991 b. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Validity of Conveyances c. Lex Situs Rule – Art. 15, FC 5
i.
Situs of Certain properties Constructive situs – Art. 1753, NCC Vessels
ii. Exceptions to Lex Situs Rule
Lex intentiones or lex voluntates Liljedahl vs. Glassgow, 190 Iowa 827 (1921)
Real property offered as security
3. Wills, Succession and Administration of Estates – Arts. 17 & 815, NCC a. Capacity of the Decedent and the Successor – Art. 16, par. 2 & 1039, NCC Cayetano vs. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-54919, May 30, 1984 b. Extrinsic Validity of Wills In re Estate of Johnson, supra. Babcock Templeton vs. Rider Babcock, G.R. No. L-28328, October 2, 1928. c. Intrinsic Validity of Wills Miciano vs. Brimo, supra. Bellis vs. Bellis, supra. Cayetano vs. Leonidas, supra. d. Interpretation of Wills – Arts. 1370, 1378, 788-792, NCC e. Revocation – Art. 829, NCC f.
Probate – Rule 77, Sec. 1, Revised Rules of Court Suntay vs. Suntay, G.R. Nos. L-3087 and L-3088, July 31, 1954 Vda. De Perez vs. Tolete, G.R. No. 76714, June 2, 1994
g. Administration of Estates – Rule 78, Sec. 4 & Rule 79, Sec. 5, Rules of Court Tayag vs. Benguet Consolidated Inc., G.R. No. L-23145, November 29, 1968 4. Contracts a. Capacity to Enter Into Contracts – Art. 15, NCC b. Extrinsic Validity of Contracts – Art. 17, NCC c. Intrinsic Validity of Contracts i.
Lex Loci Contractus 6
ii. Lex Loci Solutionis Macmillan & Bloedel vs. T.H. Valderama and Sons, 61 OG 1696 (1964) iii. Lex Loci Intentiones d. Doctrine of the Proper Law – Restatement Second Sec. 187 & 188 i.
Party Autonomy: Law of the State Chosen by the Parties Vita Food Products vs. Unus Shipping [1939] 63 Ll, L. Rep. 21 Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp. vs. Kuwait Insurance [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 365
Choice of the Forum Clause Compagnie de Commerce vs. Hamburg Amerika, G.R. No. L-10986, March 31, 1917 King Mau vs. Sycip, G.R. No. L-5897, April 23, 1954 Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation vs. Sherman, G.R. No. 72494, August 11, 1989
Contracts with Arbitration Clause Puromines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91228, March 22, 1993. The Bremen, et al. vs. Zapata Off-Shore Company, 407 U.S. 1 (1972)
Adhesion Contracts Pan Am World Airways vs. Rapadas, G.R. No. 60673, May 19, 1992 Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119641 May 17, 1996
Special Contracts o
Carriage of Goods by Sea American President Lines, Ltd. vs. Klepper, G.R. No. L-19004, June 30, 1964
o
International Air Transportation Santos III vs. Northwest Orient Airlines, G.R. No. 101538, June 23, 1992
ii.
Law Governing in the Absence of Effective Choice by the Parties Whitworth Street Estates vs. Miller [1970] 1 Lloyds Rep. 269
iii.
Limitations to Party Autonomy 7
Pakistan International Airlines vs. Ople, G.R. No. 61594, September 28, 1990 Ralli Bro. vs. Companie Naviera Sota y Aznar [1920] 2K.B. 287 [C.A.]- 85 5. Torts and Crimes – Art. 20 & 2176, NCC; Article 2, RPC; Article 27, UNCLOS a. Lex Loci Delicti Loucks vs. Standards Oil Co., 224 N.Y. 99, N.E. 198 (1913) b. Modern Theories on Foreign Tort Liability Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122191, October 8, 1998 Babcock vs. Jackson, supra. c. Foreign Tort Claims Asahi Metal Industry Co. vs. Superior Court of California, 480 US 102 (1987) d. Distinguishing between Torts and Crimes 6. Corporations and other Juridical Entities – Article 51, NCC; Sec. 14, Corporation Code a. Corporations i.
Personal Law of a Corporation M.E. Gray vs. Insular Lumber Company, G.R. No. L-45144, April 3, 1939
ii. Exceptions to the Rule of Incorporation Test Pedro Palting vs. San Jose Petroleum, Inc., G.R. No. L-14441, December 17, 1966 Filipinas Compania de Seguras vs. Christern, Huenefeld & Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-2294, May 25, 1951 iii. Domicile or residence of Foreign Corporation State Investment House, Inc. vs. Citibank, G.R. Nos. 79926-27, October 17, 1991 b. Special corporations c. Partnerships IV.
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment and Arbitral Awards – Rule 132, Sec. 25, Rules of Court; Rule 48, Sec. 39, Rules of Court A. Distinction between Recognition and Enforcement 8
Perkins vs. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., B. Bases of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Godard vs. Gray, L.R. 6 Q.B. 139 (1870) C. Policies Underlying Recognition and Enforcement D. Requisites for Recognition Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc.vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112573, February 9, 1995 Boudard vs. Tait, G.R. No. L-45193, April 5, 1939 E. Enforcement of Foreign Judgment and Arbitral Awards -------------------------------------------------- FINAL EXAMINATION ---------------------------------------------References: 1. Laws: Constitution: Art. IV and Art. V, Section 1 Civil Code: Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 815, 816, 818, 819, 829, 1039, 1319, and 1753 Rules of Court: Rule 14 and 39, Section 48, Rule 131, Section 3 (n), 132, Section 25 Family Code: Articles 10, 21, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 80, 96, 184, and 187 Revised Penal Code: Article 2 Corporation Code: Section 133 2. Restatement Second: Conflict of Laws, Secs. 187 and 188 3. Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Judgment on Civil and Commercial Matters and 1993 Convention in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption 4. Various Cases 5. Chesire & North’s Private International Law, North & Fawcett, 13th Edition (2004) 6. Conflict of Laws, Coquia & Aguiling-Pagalangan (2000) 7. Handbook on Conflict of Laws, Sempio-Diy (2004)
Teaching Methods/Strategies: A question-and-answer format will be primarily employed to determine whether the student read and understood the provisions of the law, the commentaries and the decisions of the Court. Lectures, group discussions and visual aids may be used when applicable. There shall be a midterm and final examination to test the knowledge and understanding of the students. Grading Criteria: Mid-term Exam: Recitations:
30% 30% 9
Final Exam:
40% —000—
10
