Recommended Book: Conflict of Laws (Private International Law) by Ruben E. !"alo# $%%& Ed.# Re' Book tore I.
I*R+,-C*I+ . Reas Reason ons s w/y w/y conf confli lict ct of laws laws evol evolve ved d $. Conflict of laws defined ned 0. +t/er terms defined a. 1orei!n element b. Comity c. Le' itus d. Le' fori e. Le' loci actus f. Le' loci celebrationis !. Le' loci contractus /. Le' loci delectus i. Le' loci dimicillii 2. Le' loci rei sitae3 le' situs k. 4ilber! doctrine l. Center of !ravity doctrine3 5ost si!nificant ant relations/i" t/eory3 6rou"in! of Contracts &. Conf Confli lict ct of of laws laws ess essent entia iall lly y invo involv lves es two two rem remed edie ies s 7. Conf Confli lict ct of laws laws "res "resu" u""o "ose ses s con confl flic ictt 8. 1ore 1orei! i!n n ele eleme ment nt in conf confli lict ct of laws laws situ situat atio ion n 9. */re */ree e ways ways of deal dealin in! ! wit wit/ / con confl flic ictt of of law laws s cas cases es . Ill Illust ustrat rative ive case: ase: ri!/t i!/t of fore forei! i!ne ners rs a!ai a!ains nstt t/at /at of citi;en Cases: . Saudi Saudi Arabia Arabian n Airlin Airlines es v. CA # $<9 $<9 CR CR &8<# &8<# 6.R. 6.R. o. o. $$ $$< <## +ctober # << $. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. v. Sherman # Sherman # 98 CR 00# 6.R. o. 9$&<&# u!ust # << 0. International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing # Quisumbing # 000 CR 0 &. Salvacion v. Central Bank # 8 C, &$
II.
C=+ICE . $. 0. &. 7. 8. 9.
+1 L> In !eneral 1ore 1orei! i!n n law /as /as no e't e'tra rate terr rrit itor oria iall effec effect3 t3 e'ce e'ce"t "tio ions ns C/ar C/aract acter eri; i;at atio ion n and "oi "oint nts s of cont contrac racts ts or or conne connect ctin in! ! factors C/oi C/oice ce of a""l a""lic icab able le law# law# !ene !enera rall lly y !re !reem emen entt by "ar "arti ties es33 it can canno nott cove coverr 2uri 2urisd sdic icti tion on >/er >/ere e t/e t/ere re is no a!re a!reem emen entt as as to to a"" a""li lica cabl ble e law law ""l ""lic icab able le for forei ei!n !n law law det deter ermi mine ned d by rule rules s of conf confli lict ct of of
laws a. ubstance v. "rocedural "rinci"le b. Center of !ravity doctrine c. Renvoi d. Le' fori e. 6erman rule of elective concurrence f. */e tate?interest analysis !. Caver@s "rinci"le . Illustration of renvoi doctrine <. Illustration of borrowin! statute %. Conflict between forei!n law and local law3 t/e latter "revails . E'ce"tions to a""lication of forei!n laws $. Proof and aut/entication of forei!n laws3 of documents 0. E'ce"tions to non?2udicial co!ni;ance of forei!n laws Cases: 7. Reagan v. Commisioner of Internal Revenue # 0% CR <8 8. Sison v. Board of Accountanc # 7 P/il. $98 9. Cadalin v. !"EA Administrator # $0 CR 9$ . "h Hek #o$ v. Republic # $< CR <& <. %apanta v. &ocal Civil Registrar of 'avao # $09 CR $7 %. (a)areno v. CA # 0&0 CR 809 . Bellis v. Bellis # $% CR 07 $. *overnment v. +rank # 0 P/il $08 0. Santos III v. (orth$est "rient Airlines # $% CR $78 &. A)nar v. *arcia # 9 CR <7 7. Bank of America v. American Realt Corp. # 0$ CR 87<# 6.R. o. 0098# ,ecember $<# <<< 8. ,enchave) v. Escano # 9 CR 89& 9. !akistan International Airlines Corporation v. "ple # <% CR <% . -ildvalle v. Shipping Co. &td. v. CA # 0&$ CR $0# 6.R. o. <8%$# +ctober 8# $%%% <. /anufacturers Hanover ,rust Co. v. *uerrero # 6.R. o. 08%&# 1ebruary <# $%%0. $%. Hasega$a v. #itamura # 6.R. o. &<99# ovember $0# $%%9 $. Edi0Staff Builders International v. (&RC # 6.R. o. &779# +ctober $8# $%%9
III.
. CI*IAE=IP . Im"ortance of nationality and domicile $. Citi;ens/i"# !enerally 0. >/o are citi;ens of t/e P/ili""ines
&. 7. 8. 9. . <.
Election of Citi;ens/i" *wo kinds of citi;ens ,ual citi;ens/i" Loss of citi;ens/i" Re?acuisition of 1ili"ino citi;ens/i" Citi;ens/i" by naturali;ation
B. ,+5ICILE . ,omicile defined $. 4inds of ,omicile 0. Rules re!ardin! domicile &. ,omicile of wife and minor c/ildren 7. ,omicile and residence distin!uis/ed 8. ,omicile and residence for "olitical "ur"oses 9. ,omicile and venue =. E'"ulsion of 5embers Cases: $$. Bengson III v. House of Representatives Election ,ribunal # 6.R. o. &$&%# 5ay 9# $%% $0. !oe0&laman)ares v. C"/E&EC # 6.R. os. $$8<9?$$9%%# 5arc/ # $%8 $&. '1umantan v. 'omingo # 6.R. o. <<07# anuary 0%# <<7 $7. /ercado v. /an)ano # 0%9 CR 80% (<<<) $8. Board of Immigration Commissioners v. *o Callano # $7 CR <% $9. 2acot v. 'al # 6.R. o. 9<&# ovember $9# $%% $. Sobe1ana0Condon v. C"/E&EC # 6.R. o. <9&$# u!ust %# $%$ $<. /a3uiling v. C"/E&EC 6.R. o. <78&<# "ril 8# $%0 0%. 'avid v. Agba # 6.R. o. <<0# 5arc/ # $%7 0. In Re4 !etition to Re0Ac3uire the !rivilege to !ractice &a$ in the !hilippines B.5. $$# uly $&# $%$
ID.
*I+LI* , ,+5ICILE +1 C+RP+R*I+ . Citi;ens/i" of 2uridical entity $. *ests to determine 1ili"ino cor"oration 0. ,omicile of 2uridical "erson &. ,omicile of forei!n cor"oration Cases: 0$. Hatt Elevators v. *oldstar Elevators 6.R. o. 8%$8# +ctober $&# $%%7. 00. (arra (ickel /ining and 'evelopment Corporation v. Redmont Consolidated /ines Corporation 6.R. o. <77%# "ril $# $%&.
0&. *amboa v. ,eves 6.R. o. 9879<# une $# $%. D.
C+*RC* . Law on contract3 le' loci contractus $. C/an!es in le' loci contractus to most si!nificant relations/i" 0. C/oice of law by t/e "arties in a contract &. E'ce"tions to law c/osen by t/e "arties 7. >/ere t/ere is no a!reement as to c/oice of law 8. >/ere t/ere is neit/er a!reement nor treaty 9. Place of w/ere contract is entered into or "lace of "erformance . ir trans"ortation under t/e >arsaw Convention <. >/en liability under t/e >arsaw Convention does not a""ly %. Prescri"tion of action under t/e >arsaw Convention . Illustrations of liability under a contract Cases: 07. Bagong +ilipinas "verseas Corporation v. (&RC 6.R. o. L?88%%8# 1ebruary $# <7 08. Atien)a v. !hilimare Shipping 98 CR 0$7 09. ,riple Eight Integrated Services Inc. v. (&RC 6.R. o. $<7&# ,ecember 0# << 0. Sabena Belgian -orld Airlines v. Court of Appeals $77 CR 0 (<<8) 0<. 5nited Airlines v. 5 0 CR 798 (<<<) &%. %alamea v. Court of Appeals ($$ CR $0)
DI.
>ILL , -CCEI+ . E'trinsic validity of wills $. Probate of wills 0. itus of s/ares of stock3 "ower domiciliary administrator &. Law on successional ri!/ts3 intrinsic validity Cases: &. ,aag v. Benguet Consolidated Inc. $8 CR $&$ (<8) &$. /iciano v. Brimo 7% P/il 89 (<$9) &0. Bohanan v. Bohanan %8 P/il <<9 (<8%)
DII.
PR+PER* . Law of t/e country w/ere "ro"erty is situated $. Le' loci rule affectin! land in t/e P/ili""ines 0. E'ce"tion to rule "ro/ibitin! alien from ownin! land &. Conflict of laws in real "ro"erty situated in anot/er country Cases: &&. Ramire) v. 6da. 'e Ramire) CR 9%& (<$) &7. /atthe$s v. ,alor 6.R. o. 8&7&# une $$# $%%< &8. Roman Catholic Apostolate Administrator of 'avao v. &and Registration Commissioner %$ P/il. 7<8 (<79) &9. Register of 'eeds of Ri)al v. 5ng Sin ,emple <9 P/il. 7 (<77) &. Cheesman v. IAC <0 CR <0 (<<) &<. Republic v. Court of Appeals $07 CR 78$ (<<&) 7%. Rellosa v. *a$ Chee Hun <& P/il $9 (<70) 7. &lantino v. Co &iong Chong CR 7<$ (<<%) 7$. ,he Hol See v. Rosario 2r. $0 CR 7$& (<<&) 70. &aurel v. *arcia 9 CR 9<9 (<<%)
