Conflict of LawsCourse Outline

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION

I. SCOPE OF CONFLICT OF LAWS Embraces cases or situations where a foreign element is involved A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by diverse laws of two or

more States is said to contain a foreign element

NATURE Municipal Law or private law of each state which regulates relations of individuals among

themselves or with their state It is the law of the forum that furnishes the yardstick for the presence or absence of

jurisdiction

DEFINITION Is that part of the municipal law of the state which directs its courts and administrative

agencies, when confronted with a legal problem involving a foreign element, whether or not, they should apply a foreign law or foreign laws (Paras)

IMPORTANCE1. to adjust conflicting rights in international, mercantile and corporate transactions; and2. to solve personal, family, property and successional contractual problems, possessed of

facts or elements operating in two or more states

OBJECT AND FUNCTION Is to provide rational and valid rules or guidelines in deciding cases not only by courts but

also by administrative agencies and public officers who are called upon to act on a given situation where either or all the parties, event or transaction are linked to more than one jurisdiction

FUNCTIONS According to Paras

1. the determination of which country has jurisdiction2. the applicability to a particular case of either the local or the foreign law3. the determination of the force, validity and effectiveness of a foreign judgment

According to Coquia1. to proscribe the conditions under which a court or agency is competent to entertain a suit

or proceeding involving facts containing a foreign element;2. to determine the extent, validity and enforceability of foreign judgment;3. to determine for each class of cases the particular system if law by reference to which the

rights of the parties must be ascertained

BASISPRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (CONFLICT OF LAW) PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. As to nature Municipal in character International in character2. As to persons Involved

Dealt by private individuals Parties involved are sovereign states and other entities possessed of an international personality

3. As to transactions involved

Transactions are private one between private individuals

Transactions are entered into which generally affect public interest; those which in general are of interest only to sovereign states

4. As to remedies or sanctions

Resort to Municipal Tribunals Remedies may be peaceful or forcible

II. BRIEF HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS (25)

In Ancient Rome, it presented a fertile place for the development of “ conflict rules” because two legal systems were in vogue: Roman citizens were governed by the

1

civil law of Rome; all others were under the jurisdiction of their own provincial legislation -- how easily, therefore, “conflict” theories could have arisen. But the theories did not come for only one law prevailed whenever a Roman citizen was involved, namely, Roman civil law. However, there were two incidental developments – the concept of domicile and the concept of lex situs – ( where the immovables were concerned. )

In 212 A.D., the Edict of Caracalla conferred Roman citizenship on all the people living within the Roman Empire: consequently only one law remained – the civil law of Rome – for any and all acts, events, and transactions within the Empire. Law was, thus, placed on territorial without personal or racial discrimination.

In the 5th century, the Roman Empire was overthrown by the so-called “barbarian tribe”: personal law replaced territorial law. This simply means that every person, regardless of residence, was considered subject to the law of his original nation or tribe. If the parties to a contract came from different nations, the law of the debtor prevailed – for it was then believed that his interest were paramount.

III. SOURCES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS

1. Indirect sources Natural moral law Works of writers

2. Direct sources constitutions codifications special laws treatises and international conventions judicial decisions international customs such as lex situs, lex loci celebrationis, lex

nationalii/domicilii, territoriality, generality

PART TWO: JURISDICTION

IV. JURISDICTION (2) Authority of a tribunal to hear and decide a case and possible enforceability in foreign

states, subject to the rights of said states (Paras) In international law, it is often defined as the right of a State to exercise authority over

persons and things within its boundaries, subject to certain exceptions

JUDICIAL JURISDICTION VERSUS LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION (Coquia) Judicial Jurisdiction is the power or authority of a court or administrative tribunal to try a

case, render judgment and execute it in accordance with law while Legislative Jurisdiction which is the power of the state to promulgate laws and regulations and enforce them on all persons and property within its territory

FOUR MAJOR QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CONFLICT OF LAWS PROBLEM -1. Has the court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or over his property2. Has the court jurisdiction over the subject matter, usually referred to as “competency”3. Has the suit been brought in the proper venue in cases where a foreign element is involved

and4. Is there a statute or doctrine under which a court otherwise qualified to try the case may or

may not refuse to entertain it

A. BASIS OF EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION / KINDS OF JURISDICTION1. Jurisdiction over the person which is based on forum-defendant contacts;2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter and3. Jurisdiction over the res based on forum-property contacts

1. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON is the power of the court to render judgment that will be binding on the parties involved:

the plaintiff and defendant (Paras)

Acquired throughPlaintiff - institution of action by proper pleadingDefendant - voluntary appearance or by the coercive power of legal process

exerted over the person (Paras)

2

Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired from the moment he invokes the aid of the court and voluntarily submits himself by institution of the suit through proper pleadings

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired through voluntary appearance or personal or substituted service of summons (Coquia)

WILLIAM GEMPERLE V. HELEN SCHENKER 19 SCRA 45 (Jan. 23, 1967 GR No. L-18164)

FACTS : Helen Schenker, Attorney-in-fact of his Swiss Husband, filed a complaint before the CFI of Rizal against Gemperle for the enforcement of the latter’s initial subscription to the shares of stock of the Phil. Swiss Trading Company, among others. Believing that the suit was filed for the purpose of harassing and degrading Gemperle’s reputation, he also filed damage suit against the Swiss Spouses. The trial court decided in Gemperle’s favor prompting Helen Schenker to appeal alleging that her husband cannot be sued or joined as defendants because the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over his person because he was outside the Phil., hence, beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

ISSUE : Whether or not the court can acquire jurisdiction over the person of an alien defendant?

HELD : Yes, where a Swiss citizen, residing abroad was served with summons through his wife who was residing in the Phil. and who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case which was filed at her behest in her aforementioned capacity, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over his person by means of service of summons to his wife.

As a the wife had authority to sue in his behalf, so she was also empowered to represent him in suits filed against him, particularly in a case which is a consequence of the action brought by her in his behalf.

SPS. DOMINGO BELEN vs. HON. PABLO CHAVEZ G.R. No. 175335, March 26, 2008

FACTS : Spouses Pacleb sought to enforce a foreign judgment ordering Spouses Belen to pay monetary award in a complaint for breach of contract, against the latter before the RTC of Rosario, Batangas. The summons was served on Belen’s address in San Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna received by a certain Marcelo Belen. Atty. Alcantara, the lawyer retained by Belen’s relatives, entered his appearance and filed an answer stating that the Belens are actually residents of California, USA. Subsequently, the RTC ordered a judgment in favor of Sps. Pacleb which judgment was not received by Atty. Alcantara, due to his demise but by a certain Leopoldo Avecilla. Thereafter, Atty. Carmelo Culvera, petitioner’s new counsel assailed the judgment before the CA for lack of jurisdiction over the petitioners in view of the improper service of summons. The CA affirmed the said decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE : Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.

HELD : Yes. Even if the service of summons was defective upon non- resident defendants, the appearance of Atty. Alcantara impliedly authorized by the defendants to appear on their behalf and his filing of numerous pleadings were sufficient to vest jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants.

NOTE: Defendant must be a resident of the Philippines, otherwise, an action in personam cannot be brought because jurisdiction over his person is essential to make a binding decision

2. JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPERTY is the subject matter of litigation which results either from the seizure of the property

under a legal process or from the institution of legal proceedings wherein the court’s power over the property is recognized and made effective

this kind of jurisdiction is referred to as in rem jurisdiction. Another form of jurisdiction is quasi in rem jurisdiction which affects only the interests of particular persons in the thing

3

NOTE: Summons of publication is effective in the following cases – if the action is in rem quasi in rem involves personal status of plaintiff

MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS TEST Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam,

if he is not present within the territory of the forum, he should have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

In both in rem and quasi-in rem actions, all that due process requires is that defendant be given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard which are met by service of summons by publication

LONG-ARM STATUTES statutes which specify the contacts which jurisdiction will be asserted over a defendant

outside of state territory

3. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER is conferred by law and defined as the authority of a court to hear and decide cases of the

general class to which the proceedings in question belong acquired through the allegations in the petition or complaint, read together with the proper

jurisdictional law, that will confer jurisdiction on the court

CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIONS (as to object)

1. Action in personam – any judgment that the court will render in that case binds only the parties to the action and their privies or their successors-in-interest;

2. Action in rem – any judgment that the court will render in the case binds not only the parties to the case but the whole world

3. Quasi in rem action – quasi in rem is actually in personam because it is directed only against a particular individual but the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his property to the obligation of lien burdening it. The object of the case is the sale or other disposition of property of the defendant which one may have a right or lien over the property

Example: an action to subject certain property of the defendant to payment of a claim. An action between parties where the direct object is to reach and dispose of property owned by them, or of some interest therein

IDONAH PERKINS V. ROXAS June 19, 1941 GR No. 4751

FACTS : Respondent Eugene Perkins filed a complaint against Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for the recovery of dividends but it was withheld by the corporation because of the demands made by the petitioner Idonah Perkins and George Englehard. Respondent then amended the complaint and included the herein petitioner. Summons by publication were then served upon the non-resident Defendants, Idonah and Englehard. Petitioners contended that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter because there was already a judgment of the SC of New York declaring that she was the legal owner of the questioned shares and the trial court cannot amend, annul, modify or reverse the same because it was already res judicata.

ISSUE : Whether or not the local court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action in said case in view of the alleged judgment rendered by the foreign court entered in petitioner’s favor

HELD : Yes, because jurisdiction over the subject matter means the nature of the cause of action which is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court. In the case at bar the respondent’s action calls for the adjudication of title to certain shares of stock of the corporation and the granting of affirmative reliefs which fall within the general jurisdiction of the CFI of Manila.

The test of jurisdiction is whehter or not the tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether its conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong.

4

B. WAYS OF DEALING WITH A CONFLICTS PROBLEM / WAYS OF DISPOSING CONFLICTS CASES1. Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction2. Dismiss the case on the ground of Forum Non-Conveniens3. Assume jurisdiction and apply the forum law

1. DISMISS THE CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Effect of absence or presence of Jurisdiction (Paras)1. when a court is without jurisdiction, it has no alternative except to dismiss the case for being

null and void due to lack of due process2. if a tribunal possesses jurisdiction, it may:

a. refuse to assume jurisdiction on the ground of forum non convenience orb. assume jurisdiction, in which case it may:

- apply the internal law of the forum (lex fori) or- apply proper foreign (lex causae)

2. DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON-CONVENIENS refuse to assume jurisdiction because it would prove inconvenient for the forum a forum may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized

by law on the ground that the forum is inconvenient or the ends of justice would be best served by trial in another forum or the controversy may be more suitably tried elsewhere (Doctrine of Forum Non-Conveniens)

ELEMENTS:a. the forum state is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;b. it is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts;

andc. it has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision

MANIFESTATIONS: the witnesses and evidence may not be readily available the court dockets of the forum may already be clogged; to permit additional

cases would inevitably hamper the speedy administration of justice the evils of forum-shopping ought to be curbed the forum has no particular interest in the case other courts are open: certainly the case may be better tried in said courts

HEINE V. NEW YORK INSURANCE CO., 45 Fed (2d) 426 (1940)

FACTS : Plaintiffs were German nationals and residents of Germany while Defendant is a foreign corporation organized in New York. Plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants for the recovery of insurance claims on insurance contracts issued by the defendant corporation at Oregon, USA. Plaintiffs contend that the court should take cognizance of the case since it has acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter, over the plaintiffs (thru filing of pleading in Oregon court) and over the defendant (by means of service of summons having been made on its agents in Oregon).

ISSUE : Whether or not the Oregon court can refuse to take cognizance of the case.

HELD : Yes, the Oregon court can refuse to take cognizance or to assume jurisdiction over the case on the ground of forum non-conveniens, where both parties are not residents of the place where the court was located and exercising jurisdiction. Moreover the courts of Germany and New York are open and functioning.

But it may also take cognizance of the case in the exercise of its sound discretion.

3. ASSUME JURISDICTION AND APPLY THE FORUM LAW

As a general rule, no rule of Private International Law would be violated if the courts should decide to dispose cases, according to the internal law of the forum

EXCEPT: where a foreign, sovereign, diplomatic, official or public vessel or property of another state is involved, or where a state has by treaty, accepted limitations upon its jurisdiction over certain persons or things

INSTANCES WHEN INTERNAL / DOMESTIC LAW SHOULD BE APPLIED:1. when a specific law of the forum expressly provides or decrees in its conflict rules that

internal law should apply

5

Examples:i. Article 16 of the Civil Code – real and personal property subject to the law of the

country where they are situated and testamentary succession governed by lex nationalii

ii. Article 829 of the Civil Code – makes revocation done outside the Philippines valid according the law of the place where will was made or lex domicilii

iii. Article 819 of the Civil Code – prohibits Filipinos from making joint wills even if valid in foreign country

2. when the proper foreign law has not been properly pleaded and proved

NOTE: as a general rule, courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws must be pleaded and proved

The following actions may be resorted in case of failure to prove and plead the proper foreign lawi. Dismiss the case for inability to establish cause of actionii. Assume that the foreign law of the same as the law of the forum (processual

presumption)iii. Apply the law of the forum

3. when the case involves any of the exceptions to the application of the proper foreign law as when the foreign law is

contrary to an important public policy of the forum penal in nature procedural in nature purely fiscal and administrative in nature application of the foreign law may work undeniable injustice to the citizens

of the forum the case involves real or personal property situated in the forum contrary to good morals application might endanger the vital interest of the state

Foreign Law was not properly pleaded and proved

FLEUMER V. HIX, 54 PHIL 610March 17, 1930 GR No. L-32636

FACTS : Fleumer was the administrator of the estate of Edward Hix, a resident of West Virginia. The will which was sought to be probated was denied by the court. Petitioner appealed contending that the deceased executed the will in Virginia and had his last residence in that jurisdiction, hence the laws of Virginia govern. To prove the existence of said foreign law, he presented as proof a book found in the national library and certified by the director of said library.

ISSUE : Whether or not the existence of West Virginia law was sufficiently proved.

HELD : No, because there was no showing that the book which he presented was an official publication of West Virginia, nor there was an attestation by the officer having the custody of the original and there was no proof that the law he presented was still enforced at the time alleged will was executed.

Phil. court are not bound to take cognizance of a foreign law which must be proved as a fact and in the absence of such proof it is considered as the same as ours.

PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW1. Written Law (Constitution, Statute) Official publication thereof or By a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or

by his deputy and accompanied with a certificate that such officer has custody

2. Unwritten Law (Constitution, Statute) Oral testimony of expert witnesses or By printed and published books of reports of decisions of the country

involved, if proved to be commonly admitted in such courts;

6

PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. V. BOHANAN106 Phil 997, January30, 1960 L-12105

FACTS : During the probate of the will and testament of C.O. Bohonan, it was not disputed that testator Bohonan was a citizen of Nevada and that his will shall be disposed in accordance with the law of Nevada which allows testator to dispose all of his properties according to his will and provides that divorced wife has no right to share in the inheritance. Nevada Law was introduced and offered by the executor during the hearing of the motion to withdraw Magdalena’s share which was not opposed by the testator’s children and subsequently admitted by the court. After the probate became final Magdalena and her children filed with the court contending that they were deprived of the legitime which the Phil. court concede to them, so they asked the court to present again the Nevada law to determine on whether or not the deprivation was in accordance with Nevada laws and to determine also whether the Nevada law shall apply.

ISSUE : Whether or not Nevada Law which was introduced in evidence at the time of the hearing of the project of partition be taken judicial notice

HELD : Yes. In probate proceedings, where the proper foreign law was proved when the will was admitted to probate, there was no need to repeat the proof if a subsequent hearing for approval of the project of partition. This is because the project of partition is sought to be approved in the same proceeding, although in a different stage.

In addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not dispute the provision of the laws of the State of Nevada..

ISSUE : Whether or not Nevada law shall apply in the disposition of the estate of a foreign individual

HELD : Nevada law shall apply. Art.16 of the Civil Code provides that the validity of testamentary disposition the amount of successional right the order of succession, the intrinsic validity of the will and capacity to succeed shall be the governed by the law of the person whose succession is under consideration regardless of the nature of the property and regardless of the place where the property is situated.

NOTE: there is no judicial notice of any foreign law. A foreign law must be properly pleaded

and proved as a fact, otherwise, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our internal law

RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL INC., vs. STOCKTON ROUZIE, JR.,G.R. No. 162894, February 26, 2008

FACTS : Respondent, Rouzie, an American citizen and a resident of La Union, instituted an action for damages arising from breach of contract against petitioner as well as Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI) and Rust Intl. Inc. (RUST) alleging that BMSI a foreign corp. organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, entered into a contract with Rouzie to negotiate the sale of services in government projects. in which respondent was not paid his commissions from the Pinatubo dredging project which he secured in behalf of BMSI. Petitioner sought the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and forum non conveniens since the rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut where the Special Sales of Representative Agreement was executed. However, the trial court held that it could enforce judgment against petitioner being a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines.

ISSUE : Whether or not the complaint should be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens

HELD : No. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court in conflict 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. In the said case, petitioner’s averments of the foreign elements in the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial court of its jurisdiction. The propriety in dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination thus, it is more properly considered a matter of defense.

7

V. THE PROBLEM OF CHARACTERIZATION (6)

CHARACTERIZATION, defined the process by which a court at the beginning of the choice-of-law process assigns a

disputed question to an area in substantive law, such as torts, contracts, family law of property (Coquia)

the process of determining under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall, the ultimate purpose of which is to enable the forum to select the proper law (Paras)

Factors which give rise to the problem of characterization: Different legal systems – attach to the same legal term with different meanings, that is, an identity of names covers

a difference of nature or content of legal idea; may contain ideas or conceptions completely unknown to one another; apply different principles for the solution of problems, which, in general terms, are of

common nature

STEPS IN CHARACTERIZATION

1. The determination of the facts involved

determine whether or not foreign element is involved law of the forum must be guided by its own rules of pleading and proof

2. The characterization of the factual situation

process of assigning facts into their particular category do the facts constitute a problem of –

Suggested Solution –a. in the absence of an express conflicts rule on the matter, it is suggested that the

characterization of the forum should be adhered to unless there would result a clear case of injustice

b. apply Philippine express conflict rules

GIBBS V. GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS 59 Phil 293 (1933)

FACTS : Petitioner Allison Gibbs was the husband of the deceased Eva Gibbs. Both were citizen and domiciliary of California at the time of Eva Gibbs’ death. During the existence of their marriage, the spouses acquire parcel of lands located in the Phil. When Eva died Allison the petitioner then went to the Register of Deeds and demanded the latter to issue to him a transfer certificate of title but the Register of Deeds refused to issue and to register the transfer of title in favor of Allison. So he went to the court praying that the Register of Deeds shall issue a corresponding title to him without requiring previous payment of any inheritance tax because they are citizens and residents of California therefore Californian law will apply, which provides that community property of spouses who are citizens of California, upon the death of the wife previous to that of the husband belongs, absolutely to the husband without admission

ISSUE : Which law shall apply (California or Phil)

HELD : The Phil. law shall apply because the property in question was located in the Phil. since real property as well as personal property shall be subject to the law of the country where it is situated, irrespective of the domicile of the parties or of the place where the marriage was celebrated. Phil. jurisprudence adopted the doctrine of lex rei sitae therefore Phil. law shall apply.

3. The determination of the conflicts rule which is to be applied what conflicts rule must be followed? our own conflicts rule should be followed for the following reasons –

a. purpose of conflict rulesb. we still have to identify or definitely ascertain the precise foreign country that

has the nearest or the most intimate connection with the facts that have been brought out

4. The characterization of the point of contract or the connecting factor – whose characterization of the point of contact should be adhered to? in case of doubt, the characterization of the forum must certainly prevail

Exceptions –

8

1. if problem deals with real or personal property, if the question deals with the validity of their disposition or alienation, or the capacity of the contracting parties – lex situs govern. If property is situated at the boundary of two states, lex situs of the portion of the land directly involved

2. if the forum is merely an incidental place of trial, the characterization of the forum has to give way to any common characterization that may exist in the foreign countries involved.

If, upon the other hand, there is no common characterization, we are of the belief that we may avail ourselves of the characterization that will uphold the efficacy of the contract. If this may be attained by making use of our own characterization, by all means, we must do.

5. The characterization of the problem as substantive or procedural procedural matters are governed by the law of the forum (exception to the application

of the proper foreign law) a law on prescription of actions is sui generis in the sense that it may be viewed either

as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given to such law characterization as to substantive or procedural is irrelevant when the country of the

forum has borrowing statute, which has the effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one substance

Solution: consider prescriptive period or the statute of frauds that the parties had in mind at the

time the transaction took place.

Totality approach: a. first get the law intended by the parties to govern the contract; b. then, proceed to apply that intended law in its totality including its periods of

prescription and its statute of frauds, except if subject matter governs property located in the Philippines, our own law on prescription and our own statute of frauds must apply

Sec. 48, Rules of Civil Procedure – if barred at the place where the cause of action arose, it is also barred here

STATUTE OF FRAUDSSubstantive – if the words of the law relate to forbidding the obligationProcedural – if the law forbids the enforcement of the obligation

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Substantive – when the limitation was directed to the newly created liability specifically

to warrant a qualification of the rightProcedural – if it operates to bar the legal remedy without impairing the substantive

right involved

BORROWING STATUTEdirects the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pendingclaims based on a foreign law (treats the statute of limitations as a substantive law)

CADALIN V. POEA ADMINISTRATOR 238 SCRA 721 (1994)

FACTS : Cadalin, et al., filed a class suit against ABC corporation and BRII corporation a domestic corporation licensed to recruit, mobilize and deploy Filipino workers abroad on behalf of its foreign principals on the non-payment of the unexpired portion of the employment contracts, among others. Respondent argued that the case has already prescribed in view of the Amari decree which provides that “a claim arising out of a contract of employment shall not be actionable after the lapse of one year from the date of the expiry date of the contract.” But the NLRC ruled that the actions has not yet prescribed because the prescriptive period for filing of the claims was three years and not one year as provided in the Amari decree.

ISSUE : Whether or not the Amari decree shall apply

HELD : As a general rule, a foreign procedural law (service of summons, period of actions, etc.) will not be applied in the forum which shall be governed by the laws of the forum.

9

A law on prescription 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.

However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant when the country of the forum has a “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.

“If by the laws of the state where the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Phil.”

A borrowing statute shall not be applied if it is prejudicial to labor and to the constitution or obnoxious to the forum’s public policy.

The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum’s public policy.

LWV CONS. CORP. vs. MARCELO DUPO G.R. No. 172342, July 13, 2009

FACTS : Respondent filed a complaint for payment of service award against petitioner before NLRC invoking Saudi labor Workmen’s Law. Petitioner offered payment and prescription as defenses that under Art. 13 of the Saudi Labor Law, action to enforce payment of the service award must be filed within one year from the termination of a labor contract for a specific period. However, the one year prescriptive period lapsed.

ISSUE : Whether or not the Saudi Labor Law on prescription of action will apply.

HELD : No. Applicable law is Art. 291 of the Phil. 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 otherwise they shall be forever barred.” It is not limited to money claims recoverable under the labor code but also applies to claims of overseas contract workers. As held in the Cadalin case, procedural matters are governed by the laws of the forum even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive law. Thus, respondent’s action has not prescribed.

6. The pleading and proving of the proper foreign law if a duly proved foreign law has already been given a judicial interpretation in the

country of origin, it must generally be given an identical interpretation in the Philippines, unless, we already have similar or identical internal law and said internal law has received a diametrically opposite construction before our own tribunals

7. The application of the proper foreign law to the problem

II. THE PROBLEM OF RENVOI (11)

A. RENVOI, definition procedure whereby a jural matter is presented which the conflict of laws rules of the

forum refer to a foreign law, the conflict of law of which in turn, refers the matter back to the law of the forum (remission) or a third state (transmission)

literally means referring back : problem arises when there is doubt as to whether a reference to a foreign law –

a. is a reference to the internal law of said foreign law; orb. is a reference to the whole of the foreign law, including its conflicts rule

B. VARIOUS WAYS OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM OF RENVOI / SOLUTIONS TO THE RENVOI

1. Reject the renvoi meaning, we do not want the problem to be sent back to us; that we do not want

the matter to be referred back to us (Paras) if the conflicts rules of the forum refer the case to the law of another state, it is

deemed to mean only the internal law of the state. Thus, the court will apply the foreign law (Coquia)

10

2. Accept the renvoi apply or accept it by reference to the whole law, including the conflicts rule of the

foreign law (Paras) if the conflicts rules of the forum refer the case to the law of another state, it is

deemed to include the totality of the foreign law (internal law and conflicts of laws rule). Thus, the court will recognize the referral back and apply local law. (Coquia)

3. Follow the DESISTMENT THEORY (also referred to as the MUTUAL-DISCLAIMER OF JURISDICTION THEORY) meaning, we desist or refrain from applying the foreign law because it is

inadequate as it is founded on a different basis the reason for the desistance is that the forum court upon reference to another

state’s law sees that such law is limited in application to its own national and has no provision for application to a non-national(Paras)

the forum court upon reference to another state’s law sees that such law is limited in application to its own nationals domiciled in its territory and has no provision for application to nationals domiciled outside of the territory. Hence, the local court will apply local law. This has the same result as the acceptance of the renvoi but the process used by the forum court is to desist applying the foreign law. (Coquia)

4. Use “FOREIGN COURT THEORY”

meaning, the local forum, in deciding the case, will put itself in the position of the foreign court and whatever it does respecting the case, the Philippine court will likewise do. (Paras)

foreign court assumes the same position that the foreign court would take if the case is litigated in the foreign state: Hence –

a. if the foreign court would accept the renvoi, the local court shall apply the foreign law.

b. if the foreign law would reject the renvoi, the local court shall apply lex foric. if the foreign court would apply the desistment theory, the local court shall

apply the foreign lawd. if the foreign court would use the foreign court theory, then international

pingpong would ensue (Coquia)

DOUBLE RENVOI it is that which occurs when the local court, in adopting the foreign court theory,

discovers that the foreign court accepts the renvoi

TRANSMISSION the process of applying the law of a foreign state thru the law of a second foreign

state

DOUBLE RENVOI versus TRANSMISSION double renvoi deals with two countries while transmission deals with three or more

countries double renvoi deals with referring back while transmission with transmitting

SUGGESTED CONCLUSION the theory to be adopted must consider the circumstances of a given situation that

will best result in fairness, equity and justice

AZNAR V GARCIA 117 Phil 106, 7 SCRA 95 (1963)

FACTS : Edward Christensen, a Californian citizen, came to the Philippines and became a domiciliary until he died. Before he died he executed a will instituting his natural child Maria as his only heir to his estate but left a legacy to his acknowledge natural child., Helen. The project of partition of Christensen’s estate was opposed by Helen claiming that under Phil. law, California law applies being the national law of the decedent. However, the matter was referred back to the Philippines since under California law, it is the law of the decedent’s domicile that should govern the amount of Helen’s succesional rights. Under Philippine law, Helen’s share must be increased in view of the successional rights of illegitimate children applying Art. 16 par.2 of the Civil Code. Maria contends that it is clear that under Art.16 par.2 of Civil Code, the national of the deceased must apply, meaning our courts should apply the internal law of California which provides that there are no compulsory heirs and consequently a testator could dispose of any of his property in absolute dominion and that illegitimate children are not entitled to anything.

11

ISSUE : Whether or not the distribution of the estate should be governed by the Phil. laws

HELD : Yes.There are two rules in California on the matter, the internal law which applies to Californian citizens domiciled in California and the conflicts rule which applies to Californian citizens domiciled in other states which states that “If there is no law to the contrary in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the law of his domicile”.

As the domicile of the deceased who was citizen of California was the Phil., the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural child of the latter’s legacy should be governed by the Phil. law. Therefore Helen’s legacy shall be increased.

C. Usefulness of Renvoi (to avoid unjust results)

BELLIS VS BELLIS 20 SCRA 359 (1968)

FACTS : Decedent Amos Bellis was a citizen and a domiciliary of Texas at the time of his death. He made two wills before he died which were executed in the Phil., one disposing his properties in Texas and the other his properties in the Phil. Although respondents were given their shares in other properties, they were however deprived in the residuary estate of the decedent. They filed an opposition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes to which they would be entitled if the Phil. law were to apply. But the executor contended that since the decedent is a Texan citizen the Texas law shall be applied which do not provide for any provisions regarding compulsory heirs and legitimes.

ISSUE : Whether or not Philippine Law should be applied

HELD : No. What applied is Texas Law, being the national law of the decedent and pursuan to Art. 16 of the NCC. Under said law, there are no compulsory heirs and no legitimes. Hence, the decedent’s illegitimate children are not entitled to any legitime.

Art.16 of the NCC provides “in case of intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights, and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provision and the capacity to succeed shall be governed by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the place wherein said property may be found”

ISSUE : Whether or not Renvoi Doctine applies

HELD : No. Said doctrine is pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country and domiciliary of another. In the present case, Amos Bellis, was both a national and domiciliary of Texas at the time of his death.

ISSUE : Whether or not Bellis intended Phil. Laws to govern his estate in the Phil.

HELD : Assuming that such was the intention of the deceased in executing a separate Philippine will, the court ruled in Miciano vs. Brimo, a provision in a foreigner’s will to the effect that this properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void.

VII. NOTICE OF PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW (RULE 132, RULES OF COURT; RULE 130, RULES OF COURT)

A. Extent of Judicial Notice Section 1, Rule 129, Rules of Court , Judicial Notice, when mandatory – A

court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions

12

Section 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court , Judicial Notice, when discretionary – a court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known bjudges because of their judicial functions

B. Proof of Foreign Law1. Written Law (Constitution, Statute)

Official publication thereof or By a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his

deputy and accompanied with a certificate that such officer has custody2. Unwritten Law (Constitution, Statute)

Oral testimony of expert witnesses or By printed and published books of reports of decisions of the country involved, if

proved to be commonly admitted in such courts;

RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDMENTS

a foreign judgment is recognized when it is given the same effect that it has in the state where it was rendered with respect to the parties, the subject matter of the action and the issued involved. Where the foreign judgment is being presented as a defense to the claim of the plaintiff, what is involved is the recognition of a foreign judgment

a foreign judgment is enforced when, in addition to being recognized, a party is given affirmative relief to which the judgment entitles him. When a plaintiff asks the court of one state to carry out and make effective a judgment obtained by him in another state, what is involved is the enforcement of a foreign judgment.

Requisites:1. foreign judgment was rendered by a judicial or a quasi-judicial tribunal which

had competent jurisdiction over the parties and the case in the proper judicial proceedings in which the defendant shall have been given reasonable notice and the opportunity to be heard;

2. it must be a judgment on civil and commercial matters;3. the judgment must be valid according to the court that delivered it;4. judgment must be final and executory to constitute res judicata in another

actionElements of res judicata:a. Finalb. Rendered by a competent courtc. On the meritsd. Involve the same parties, subject matter and cause of action

5. foreign judgment must not be contrary to the public policy or the good morals of the state where it is to be enforced

6. judgment must not have been obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake of fact or mistake of law

7. the foreign judgment must not be barred by prescription under the law of the state in which it was promulgated or under the law of the state in which its recognition/enforcement is sought

DISTINCTION BETWEEN RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT

RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT

ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT

Courts will allow the foreign judgment to be presented as a defense to a local litigation

Plaintiff wants courts to positively carry out and make effective in the state a foreign judgment

Involves merely the sense of justice Virtually implies a direct act of sovereigntyDoes not require either an action of a special proceeding

Necessitates a separate action or proceeding brought precisely to make the foreign judgment effective

May exist without enforcement Necessarily carries with it recognition

For both recognition and enforcement, proof of the foreign judgment has to be presented. Moreover, the requisites or conditions for the recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments must be present.

13

EFFECTS OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

Under the Rules of Court, in case of judgment against a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title of the thing.

In case of judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment may be repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion or clear mistake of law of fact

C. Philippine Courts not authorized to take judicial notice of foreign laws

IN RE ESTATE OF JOHNSON 39 Phil 157

FACTS : Johnson, a naturalized citizen of Illinois, USA, died in the Phil. Before he died, he made holographic witnessed only by two persons instead of three as required by Phil. law. His executor sought the probate of his will before the CFI of Manila contending that Johnson was a citizen of Illinois, USA at the time of his death and that the will was executed in accordance with the laws of Illinois, USA. Moreover, the will can be probated here pursuant to the Phil. Civil Procedure. The executor presented proof of said law before the court which was admitted by the trial court. However, Emma, Johnson’s daughter moved to annul the decree of probate and prayed for the commencement of intestate administration of the estate on the ground that Johnson was not a resident of the state of Illinois (became a resident in Manila, but offering only a general statement) and that the probated will was not in accordance with the laws of that state.

ISSUE : Whether or not Johnson is a citizen of USA.

HELD : Johnson remains a citizen of USA. The petition does not deny the citizenship of Johnson but only asserts that he became a resident of the Phil. Mere residency in another country without any intention of renouncing his citizenship does not necessary follow that he will immediately acquire citizenship in the state of his new domicile.

ISSUE : Whether or not by mere offering a general statement sufficient to prove.

The will was in accordance with the laws of USA. The trial judge was fully satisfied with the proof of such law presented by the executor of the deceased. Even presuming that the trial court may have erred in taking judicial notice of the law of Illinois, USA, such error is not available to the petitioner, first, because she did not offer any evidence as to what the true law of USA is, which would appear that the law found by the court is different from the true law of Illinois USA and second, because the assignment of error and argument for the appellant in this court raises no question based on such supposed error

A.1. EXCEPTIONS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PROPER FOREIGN LAW – When the foreign law is-

contrary to an important public policy of the forum penal in nature procedural in nature purely fiscal and administrative in nature application of the foreign law may work undeniable injustice to the citizens

of the forum the case involves real or personal property situated in the forum contrary to good morals

PARDO V. REPUBLIC 85 Phil 323

FACTS : Petitioner Vicente Pardo was a Spanish citizen born in Spain in 1895. In 1905 he went to the Phil., resided here, married a Filipina and employed in Manila. Petitioner arrived in the Phil. when he was only ten years old and has already lived here for 44 years. Petitioner filed a petition for naturalization but it was opposed by the government on the ground, among others, the sufficiency of evidence whether or not the laws of Spain grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizen of that country. Petitioner only presented a certificate signed by the Consul Genral of Spain in the Phil. stating that in accordance with Art.17 and 25 of the Spanish Code,

14

Filipinos are eligible to Spanish citizenship in Spain and further, said law could have been taken judicial notice by Phil. courts.

ISSUE : Whether or not the certification of the supposed naturalization laws of Spain signed by the Spanish Consul General constitutes competent proof of law where Phil. courts can take judicial notice.

HELD : Yes. As the Civil Code has been and still is the basic code in force in the Phil. Art.17 of thereof may be regarded as matters known to judges of the Phil. by reason of their judicial functions and may be judicially recognized by them without the introduction of proof. That Filipinos are eligible to Spanish citizenship in Spain, is a matter of judicial notice. Moreover, authentication or certification of the nationality laws of Spain by the Consul General is a competent proof of Spanish Laws to that effect.

PHIL. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK V. ESCOLIN 56 SCRA 266

FACTS : Spouses Charles and Linnie Hodges executed a mutual will providing that all the remainder of his/her own estate be given to whoever survived the other and that upon the death of the surviving spouse, the remainder shall be given to the siblings of the latter. Linnie died first in 1957 while Charles died in 1962. PCIB, Charles’ administrator, claimed that since the spouses were residents of the Phil., the estate left by Linnie could not be more than ½ of her share in the conjugal partnership, notwithstanding the fact that she was a citizen of Texas. Magno, Linnie’s administrator, argued that the applicable law was that of Texas under which there was no system of legitime, hence, the estate of Linnie could not be less than ½ of her share of the conjugal partnership.

ISSUE : Whether or not there is a need to ascertain the laws of Texas.

HELD : Yes. Elementary is the rule that foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proven like any other fact in dispute between the parties in any proceeding, with the rare exception in instances when the said laws are already within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when they are well and generally known or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties concerned claim otherwise

ISSUE : Whether or not previous admission on what Texas law is creates estoppel?

HELD : Yes, it creates estoppel. The existence and effects of foreign laws being questions of fact, such previous admission thereof creates estoppels in any further proceedings.

PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. V. BOHANAN106 Phil 997, January30, 1960 L-12105

FACTS : During the probate of the will and testament of C.O. Bohonan, it was not disputed that testator Bohonan was a citizen of Nevada and that his will shall be disposed in accordance with the law of Nevada which allows testator to dispose all of his properties according to his will and provides that divorced wife has no right to share in the inheritance. Nevada Law was introduced and offered by the executor during the hearing of the motion to withdraw Magdalena’s share which was not opposed by the testator’s children and subsequently admitted by the court. After the probate became final Magdalena and her children filed with the court contending that they were deprived of the legitime which the Phil. court concede to them, so they asked the court to present again the Nevada law to determine on whether or not the deprivation was in accordance with Nevada laws and to determine also whether the Nevada law shall apply.

15

ISSUE : Whether or not Nevada Law which was introduced in evidence at the time of the hearing of the project of partition be taken judicial notice

HELD : Yes. In probate proceedings, where the proper foreign law was proved when the will was admitted to probate, there was no need to repeat the proof if a subsequent hearing for approval of the project of partition. This is because the project of partition is sought to be approved in the same proceeding, although in a different stage.

In addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not dispute the provision of the laws of the State of Nevada..

ISSUE : Whether or not Nevada law shall apply in the disposition of the estate of a foreign individual

HELD : Nevada law shall apply. Art.16 of the Civil Code provides that the validity of testamentary disposition the amount of successional right the order of succession, the intrinsic validity of the will and capacity to succeed shall be the governed by the law of the person whose succession is under consideration regardless of the nature of the property and regardless of the place where the property is situated.

LIM V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS36 Phil 472

FACTS : Two minor children born in China from a Chinese father and who were in the custody of their Filipino mother were denied by the respondent to enter into the Phil. on the ground that under Chinese immigration laws a certificate shall be necessary in order to enter into the Phil. Petitioners contended that they are entitled to enter, regardless of the provisions of the law since they are citizens of the Phil. and that their mother who is entitled to their custody and charged with their maintenance and education, is clearly entitled to take up her residence in the Phil. and should not be required, to that end, to abandon her minor children. But petitioners failed to prove and present the Chinese law.

ISSUE : In the absence of any evidence of the Chinese law, what law shall apply.

HELD : Infant children of a Filipino woman born in China out of lawful wedlock, whose father was a Chinese person, seeking entry into the Phil. in the custody and control of their mother for the purpose of taking up their residence here with her are not subject to exclusion under the Chinese Immigration laws.

In the absence of anything to the contrary as to the character of a foreign law, it will be presumed to be the same as the domestic law on the same subject.

Since the court was not advised of any provision of Chinese law which differentiates the status of infant children, born out of lawful wedlock, the court therefore assumes that China law is the same in Phil. law regarding the rights and status of infant children born out of wedlock.

RESOLUTION: Chinese Law governs but in reality Philippine Law, because of failure to prove Chinese Law

BEAM V. YATCO 82 Phil 30

FACTS : A.W. Beam and his wife Lydia Beam were residents and citizens of California at the time of Lydia Beam’s death. But sometime during their marriage they resided here and acquired properties in the Phil. When Lydia Beam died half of her properties were inherited by the plaintiffs and consequently the CIR imposed an inheritance tax. Plaintiffs paid under protest on the ground that A.W. Beam was citizen of Utah, as manifested by A.W.’s deposition (stating that he is born in Utah, lived with his parents there and was enlisted in the army) and under Utah law, properties acquired by the spouses during the marriage belong to them separately. For failure of Defendant to prove his Utah citizenship, the CIR contended that the law of the Phil. shall govern and that since the properties in question were acquired by them during their marriage, it should be considered as part of the community property and upon the death of the wife, her properties shall be transmitted to her heirs by virtue of

16

succession pursuant to Art.1401 of the Civil Code and therefore subject to the inheritance tax.

ISSUE : Which law will apply, California or Utah Law?

HELD : California law applies. Even granting appellants contetion that the deceased became a resident of California only in 1934, she was a citizen if that state at the time of her death and her national law is applicable to the case, in accordance with Art. 10 of the CC, it is the Law of California, which, in the absence of contrary evidence, is to be presumed to be the same as the Philippine Law.

When a foreign law is pleaded and no evidence has been presented as to what said law is, it is presumed that Utah law is the same as in the law of the forum.

NOTE: Upon the death of the wife, ½ of the community property shall go to the SS, the other half being subject to testamentary disposition of the decedent, and in the absence thereof, half shall go to the SS by inheritance

MICIANO V. BRIMO 50 Phil 67

FACTS : A Turkish national made a will wherein he stated that his property shall be distributed in accordance with Phil. laws and not Turkish Law, his national law and that any heir who would oppose the testamentary provision mandating the application of Philippine Law shall lose his inheritance. Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased Turkish opposed the scheme of partition filed by Miciano, the judicial administrator, on the ground that said provisions in the will is void being in violation of Art. 16 of the Civil Code. However, Brimo failed to present any evidence showing what the Turkish laws are regarding testamentary dispositions.

ISSUE : Whether or not partition proceedings be refused. What law shall be applied.

HELD : No, it shall not be refused because foreign laws shall be proved as a fact and in the absence of such proof, they are presumed to be same as Phil. laws. Thus partition proceedings may be continued.

However, by failure to prove by the brother oppositor on what the Turkish law is all about, the court indulged in a presumption that Turkish law was the same as ours. And his estate shall be distributed in accordance with the Phil. laws but testamentary provision made by the testator shall be void for being contrary to the law.

COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. FISHER110 Phil 636

FACTS : Stevenson was born in the Phil. of British parents and was married to Beatrice also a British national. Stevenson died and instituted his wife as his sole heir to certain properties acquired by both spouses while residing here in the Phil. When Beatrice filed a preliminary estate and inheritance tax return, she claims for a deduction of taxes on the ground that under the Phil. civil law, in the absence of any ante-nuptial agreement, the contracting parties are presumed to have adopted the system of conjugal partnership as to the properties acquired during the marriage, hence, the taxable net estate shall be reduced. But the petitioner contended that the property relation of the husband should not be governed by the Phil. but by the English law which does not recognize legal partnership between spouses, hence all properties acquired by the husband during the marriage shall belong exclusively to the husband, and therefore the taxable net estate is the whole of the decedent’s estate. But petitioner failed to prove said English law.

ISSUE : Whether or not English law shall be applied.

HELD : No. The pertinent English law that allegedly vests in the decedent husband full ownership of the properties acquired during the marriage has not been proven by the petitioner except for a mere allegation in his answer which is not sufficient. In the absence of such proof, it is presumed that the law of England on the matter is the same as our law.

17

YAM KA LIM VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS30 Phil 46

FACTS : Yam Ka Lim, of Chinese descent, arrived at the port of Manila from the port of Hongkong and sought admission into the Philippine Islands, claiming that he is the legitimate minor son of Yam Long Sai, a resident Chinese merchant. The BSI, questioned his right to enter the Philippines and after examining the evidence submitted by the petitioner and from the testimonies of the witnesses, refused to permit him to land upon the ground that they did not believe him to be the legitimate son of the said Yam Long Sai. Notice of the said decision was given to Yam Long sai and to his representative William Tracey Page, giving them 2 days to appeal to the Insular Collector of Customs. Later a bond was given for the release of the plaintiff. No appeal was taken from the decision of the BSI to the Insular Collector of Customs. Without having first decided whether the Collector of Customs had abused his authority, the lower court proceeded to hear evidence upon the question whether or not Yam Ka Lim was the legitimate minor son of Yam Long Sai. After hearing the evidence and taking into consideration the laws of China, without any proof as to what they were, the lower court decided that the said Yam Ka Lim was the legitimate son of the said Yam Long Sai and ordered him to be released from the custody of the Collector of Customs and that he be permitted to enter the Philippine Islands and that the said bond theretofore given be canceled. Hence this appeal.

ISSUE : Whether or nor the court erred in taking judicial notice of the laws of China relative to marriage and child legitimacy, which differ from those in force in the Philippine Islands.

HELD : Yes, the lower court committed an error in taking judicial notice of what the laws of marriage in China are. The statutes of other countries must be pleaded and proved the same as any other fact. In the absence of such pleading and proof the laws of a foreign state will be presumed to be the same as our own.

There was ample proof in the record to show, or at least to convince the board of special inquiry, that said Yam Ka Lim was not the legitimate minor son of the said Yam Long Sai.

PART THREE: PERSONAL LAW

VIII. NATIONALITY refers to membership in a political community. The Philippines adheres to the nationality law Theory

Nationality Law Theory is a conflict of law theory by virtue of which jurisdiction over the particular subject matter

affecting a person such as status of a natural person, is determined by the latter’s nationality (Coquia)

it is national law of the individual that regulates his civil status, capacity, condition, his family rights and duties, laws on succession and capacity to succeed

Nationality vs. Citizenship while nationality is membership in an ethnic, social, racial and cultural group, citizenship is

membership in a political society

NATIONALITY CONFLICT RULE

Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. (9a)

A. DETERMINATION OF NATIONALITY Each State has the prerogative and authority to determine by its own municipal law who

are its nationals or citizens The Hague Convention on Conflict of National Laws provides “it is for each state to

determine who are its nationals. This law shall be recognized by other states insofar as it is consistent with international convention, international customs, and the principles of law generally recognized with regard to nationality.

NOTE: Nationality may be acquired by birth or by naturalization

18

The three kinds of citizens of the Philippines are –

1. Natural Born Citizens2. Naturalized Citizens or Citizens by Naturalization3. Citizens by election

1. NATURAL BORN CITIZENS – those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Native born citizen is one born in the country of which he is a citizen, hence, a child born to a Filipino mother in Germany is a natural born, but not native born citizen

Article IV of the Philippine Constitution (1987), The following are citizens of the Philippines –a. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the

Constitution;b. Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines;c. Those born before January 17. 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philppine

citizenship upon reaching the age of majority (within three years)d. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law

TWO THEORIES on whether place or ancestry determines citizenship

1. JUS SOLI PRINCIPLE – the law of the place of one’s birth determine one’s nationality 2. JUS SANGUINIS PRINCIPLE – one follows the citizenship of his parents; this is

citizenship by blood

The Philippine Constitution applies the Jus Sanguinis principle which means the rule of descent or blood.

TALAROC V. UY, 92 Phil 52 (1952)

FACTS : Alejandro Uy, was elected as Municipal Mayor of Manticao, Misamis Oriental. Talaroc, the defeated candidate opposed on the ground that Uy was a Chinese citizen and therefore ineligible for the position. Uy contended that his father is a subject of Spain and that his mother ipso facto reacquired her Filipino citizenship upon the death of her husband. He thus followed his mother’s citizenship and is a citizen of the Phil. by the mere fact of his birth.

ISSUE : Whether or not Uy is Filipino citizen.

HELD : Alejandro Uy became a Filipnio citizen at least upon his father’s death. According to the Roa case, a Filipino woman married to Chinese ipso facto reacquired her Filipino citizenship upon the death of her husband and that thereafter her minor children’s nationality automatically followed that of the mother’s. This rule was not changed by the adoption of the jus sanguinis doctrince and was in force until CA 63 went into effect in 1963, by which the legislature, for the first time, provided a method for regaining Philippine citizenship by Filipino in such cases.

The rule applies only to minor children not to persons who are already of age.

CO V. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REP. 199 SCRA 692

FACTS : Ong’s father was a Chinese citizen married to a natural born Filipina in 1932. They bore 8 children, one of whom is private respondent who was born in 1948. On 1955, private respondent’s father took his Oath of Allegiance and was declared a Filipino citizen. In 1984 and 1986 elections, he registered himself as a voter of Laoang Samar. The following year he ran in the elections for representative in the 2nd district of Northern Samar in which he was proclaimed winner. Balinqui and Co, defeated candidates, protested on the ground that Ong, was not a natural born citizen of the Phil. because he failed to file a statement or formal declaration when he reached the age of majority to elect Phil. citizenship which is required under the law.

ISSUE : Whether or not Ong is a Filipino citizen at the time he filed his candidacy.

19

HELD : Yes. He was already a citizen. Not only because his mother was a natural born citizen but also his father had been naturalized when the respondent was still a minor. He exercises his right of suffrage and established his life here in the Phil.

The exercise of right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of Phil. citizenship.

To require the respondent to elect Phil. citizenship, would not only have been superfluous but would also have resulted in absurdity considering that it was the law itself that had already elected Phil. citizenship for him.

An attack on a person’s citizenship may only be done through a direct action of its nullity, not through a collateral approach.

CORDORA VS. COMELECG.R. No. 176947, February 19, 2008

FACTS : Cordora (Cordora) filed a criminal complaint accusing Tambunting of an election offense by making false statements in his certificates of candidacy. Cordora contended the latter was not eligible to run for local public office because he lacked the required citizenship and residency requirements. Cordora presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration which stated that Tambunting claimed that he is an American. According to Cordora, respondent acquired American citizenship through naturalization in Honolulu, Hawaii. For his part, Cordora presented a copy of his birth certificate showing that he was born of a Filipino mother and an American father, further denying that he was naturalized as an American citizen and that he also took an oath of allegiance pursuant to RA 9225. The case was dismissed since Cordora holding that his reliance on the certification of the Bureau of Immigration that Tambunting traveled on an American passport is not sufficient to prove that Tambunting is an American citizen which was affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc. Moreover, Tambunting effectively renounced his American citizenship when he filed his certificates of candidacy in 2001 and 2004 and ran for public office. Cordora filed a motion for reconsideration but was dismissed for lack of merit.

ISSUE : Whether or not Tambunting is a dual citizen

HELD : Yes. Because of his parents differing citizenships, he is both Filipino and American by birth, thus, he possesses dual citizenship. The process involved in INS from I-130 only served to confirm the American citizenship which he acquired from birth. The fact that Tambunting had dual citizenship did not disqualify him from running for public office.

The SC reiterated a previous ruling in Mercado v. Manzano, wherein dual citizenship is not a ground for disqualification from running for any elective local position. Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states.

In Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. No. 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. Section 5(3) of R.A. No. 9225 states that naturalized citizens who reacquire Filipino citizenship and desire to run for elective public office in the Philippines shall "meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath" aside from the oath of allegiance prescribed in Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225. In the present case, Tambunting, a natural-born Filipino, did not subsequently become a naturalized citizen of another country. Hence, the twin requirements in R.A. No. 9225 do not apply to him.

2. NATURALIZED CITIZENS or CITIZENS BY NATURALIZATION – those who are not natural-born citizens; those who become such through judicial proceedings

NATURALIZATION is the process of acquiring citizenship of another country;

20

a. In the strict sense, it is a judicial process, where formalities of the law have to be complied with including a judicial hearing and approval of the petition

b. In the loose and broad sense, it may mean not only the judicial process but also the acquisition of another citizenship by such acts as marriage to a citizen, and the exercise of the option to elect a particular citizenship (Paras)

NATURALIZATION confers to an alien a nationality after birth by any means provided by the law. In the Philippines, naturalization is by judicial method under CA 473 as amended by republic Act 530. (Coquia)

QUALIFICATIONS OF NATURALIZATIONa. The petitioner must not be less than 21 years of age on the date of the hearing

of the petition;b. He must have, as a rule resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not

less than 10 years;

Note: The minimum ten-year residence requirement is to enable the government to observe the applicant’s conduct and to ensure that he has imbibed the principles and spirit of our Constitution.

However, this period may be reduced to five years in any of the following cases:

(1) If the applicant has honourably held office under the Government of the Philippines or under any of the provinces, cities, municipalities, or political subdivisions thereof;

(2) If he has established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines;

(3) If he is married to a Filipino woman;(4) If he had been engaged as a teacher in a public or recognized private

school not established for the exclusive instruction of children of persons of a particular nationality or race in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of two years;

(5) If he was born in the Philippines.

c. He must be of good moral character, and believe in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living;

d. He mush own real estate in the Philippines worth not less that Php 5,000.00, or must have some lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation;

e. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages

f. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public schools or private schools where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum during the entire period of the residence required of him, prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as citizen (Paras)

YU KIAN CHLE V. REPUBLIC13 SCRA 282 (1965)

FACTS : Petitioner a citizen of China filed a petition for naturalization before the CFI of ManilA alleging that he was an employee with an average income of P3,000 The OSG opposed for failure of Yu to prove that he had lucrative income and his witness is not credible. The court granted the petition but this was appealed by the OSG on same grounds. During the pendency thereof, Yu a Motion to Reopen case to enable him to present additional proof of his Income, claiming that his income has risen from P3,000 in 1957 to P5,100 in 1960 and P1,000 in 1961. The OSG moved for the reversal of the decision on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that he has a lucrative income considering that the increase he received was due to the bonuses given by his employer.

ISSUE: Whether or not the applicant has a lucrative income to qualify him as an applicant for naturalization in the Philippines.

21

HELD: No. Insofar as the evidence is concerned, the petitioner’s income is only P150.00 which amount does not come up to the category of lucrative income, considering that he is now a married man. It is not enough for an application for applicant for naturalization not to be a financial burden upon the community. He must also have a “lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation”. This application has been construed to mean, that his financial condition must be such as to permit him and the members of his family to live with reasonable, comfort, in accordance with the prevailing standard of living and consistently with the demand of human dignity.

In considering whether an applicant for naturalization has a lucrative income, allowance and bonuses which may or may not be given to him as where they spring from purely voluntary actuations of his employer conditioned to the circumstance that the employer was making profits, should not be added to his basic salary.

3. CITIZENS BY ELECTION – citizens by virtue of certain legal provisions, become such by choosing (or electing) Philippine citizenship after attaining the age of majority or within a reasonable time (within 3 years)

B. Procedure for Naturalization

The following are the steps for naturalization –

1. A declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen must first be filed, with the Office of the Solicitor General, unless the applicant is exempted from this requirement;

Exemptions to the filing of Declaration of Intention – Persons born in the Philippines and who have received their primary and

secondary education in public schools or private schools recognized by the government, and not limited to any race or nationality

Those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before filing their application

The widow and minor children of an alien who declared his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines and dies before he is actually naturalized

2. The petition for naturalization must then be filed3. After publication in the official gazette or newspaper of general publication the petition

will be heard4. If the petition is approved, there will be a rehearing two years after the promulgation

of the judgment awarding naturalization5. Taking of the oath of allegiance to support and defend the constitution and the laws of

the Philippines (Coquia)

NOTE: The law provides for exemptions to the filing of declaration of intention. They are the following:(1) Persons born in the Philippines and who have received their primary and secondary

education in public schools or private schools recognized by the Government, and not limited to any race or nationality;

(2) Those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before filing their application;

(3) The widow and minor children of an alien who declared his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines and dies before he is actually naturalized.

Effect of Naturalization on Wife and Children

VIVO V. CLORIBEL 25 SCRA 616

FACTS : Private respondent Chua Pic Luan, a Chinese mother and her minor children came here in the Phil. and were admitted as temporary visitors with an initial authorized stay of three months. Meanwhile, her husband, Uy Pick Tuy, and the father of these aliens had applied for naturalization. After the expiration of their temporary stay, respondents petitioned for an indefinite extension stay. However this was opposed by the petitioner Commissioner of Immigration. Nevertheless, they were given a 2 year extension. On the specified date of the expiration of such extension, respondent did not leave the country but instead filed for mandamus with injunction to implement the extension previously authorized by the Sec. of Foreign Affairs on the ground that the eventual conversion into naturalized Filipino of her husband will also automatically make her a Filipino citizen. The Immigration Commissioner in his answer alleged that even if her husband will become a Filipino citizen, she would not

22

automatically become a Filipino citizen, as she has yet to show that she can be lawfully naturalized.

ISSUE: Whether or not the private Respondents may automatically become Filipino citizens following the naturalization of the alien’s husband?

HELD: No, an alien woman, married to a naturalized Filipino citizen, does not automatically make her a Filipino citizen, since she must first prove that she possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications of naturalization.

By having misrepresented before Phil. consular and administrative authorities that she came to the country for only a temporary visit when, in fact, her intention was to stay permanently and for having intentionally delayed court processes prolong her stay, respondent demonstrated her incapacity to satisfy the qualifications for naturalization that she must be of good moral character and must have conducted herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during her entire stay in the Phil.

As to foreign-born minor children, they are extended citizenship “if dwelling in the Phil. at the time of the naturalization of their parent.” Dwelling means “lawful residence.” In the case at bar, since their stay in the country has already expired, it cannot be said that they lawfully dwells herein the Phil. Hence, citizenship cannot be extended to them.

MOY YA LIM YAO V. COMMISSONER OF IMMIGRATION41 SCRA 292

FACTS : Lau Yueng, Chinese citizen was allowed to enter and stay in the Phil for 1 month which was extended until Feb. 13, 1962. Before the expiration of her authorized stay, she married Moy Ya Lim Yao, an alleged Filipino citizen. After the expiration, the COI ordered her to leave and causing her arrest and deportation on the ground that “mere marriage of a Filipino citizen to an alien woman does not automatically confer Phil. citizenship to the latter.” The alien wife must first posses all the qualifications required by law to become a Filipino citizen by naturalization and none of the disqualifications meaning that she must first present proof in the naturalization proceedings that she is not disqualified and that she possessed all the qualifications provided by law.

ISSUE : Whether or not mere marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino citizen automatically confer to the alien woman a Filipino citizenship.

HELD : An alien woman marrying a Filipino native-born (or naturalized) becomes ipso facto a Filipino provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Phil. under Sec. 4 Ipso facto means that it is no longer necessary for her to prove that she possessed the requisite qualifications in a naturalization proceedings.

Likewise an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized follows the Phil. citizenship of her naturalized husband provided she possesses none of the disqualifications provided by law.(Sec.4)

These decisions in effect ruled that it is not necessary for an alien citizen to prove in a judicial proceeding that she posses all the qualifications set forth in Sec. 2 and none of the disqualifications under Sec.4.

C. Loss of Citizenship

Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways (Pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended by Republic Act No 106) by –

1. Naturalization in foreign countries2. Express renunciation of citizenship3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign

country upon attaining 21 years old or more: provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country;

4. Rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country:

5. Cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization;6. Having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed

forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon of amnesty has been granted and;

23

7. In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner, if by virtue of the laws in force of her husband’s country, she acquires his nationality

FRIVALDO V. COMELEC 174 SCRA 245

FACTS : Frivaldo was proclaimed and assumed office as governor of the Sorsogon province. However his election was opposed by private respondent on the ground that Frivaldo was not a Filipino citizen having been naturalized in the US in 1983 and that he failed to repatriate himself after his naturalization in the US. Thus being an alien he was disqualified to hold any public office in the Phil. and his election did not cure the defect. Petitioner admitted the allegation but pleaded as special defense that he has sough American citizenship only to protect himself against Pres. Marcos and that his naturalization was not impressed with voluntariness but was merely forced as a means of survival against the unrelenting persecution by the Martial Law Dictator’s agents abroad. Further, his active participation in the election automatically forfeits his American citizenship.

ISSUE : Whether or not by actively participating in the election, petitioner can automatically forfeit his American citizenship and automatically restore his Phil. Citizenship.

HELD : No. There filing of certificate of candidacy does automatically restore his Phil. citizenship. Even if petitioner lost his naturalized American citizenship it will not and could not have the effect of automatic restoration of his Phil. citizenship.

Reparation requires an express and unequivocal act. If he really wanted to disavow his American citizenship and reacquire Phil. citizenship, the petitioner should have done so in accordance with the laws of our country. That is by:

1) Naturalization2) Direct act of Congress3) Repatriation

Phil. citizenship previously disowned is not that cheaply recovered.

FRIVALDO V. COMELEC 257 SCRA 727

FACTS : Frivaldo obtained the highest number of votes in 3 successive elections but was twice declared by the Supreme Court to be disqualified to hold office due to his alien citizenship. He now claims to have re-assumed his lost Phil citizenship thru repatriation. It was established that he took his oath of allegiance under the provisions of PD 725 on June 30, 1995, much later than the time he filed his Cert. of Candidacy.

ISSUE : Whether or not Frivaldo reacquired his Phil citizenship thru repatriation

HELD : Yes. Under Phil. law citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization or repatriation. The law does not specify any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship, unlike that for residence and age. The SC holds that the repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to the date of the filing of his application on August 17, 1994. Being a former Filipino, he deserves a liberal interpretation of Phil. Laws and whatever defects there were in his nationality should be deemed mooted by his repatriation.

LABO, JR. V. COMELEC 176 SCRA 1

FACTS : Petitioner Labo Jr. was elected as mayor of Baguio. However his election was opposed by respondent Lardizabal on the ground that petitioner was not a citizen of the Phil. based on the administrative decisions rendered by the Commission of Immigration and Deportation stating that petitioner was not a citizen of the Phil. since it was contained in the official statement of Australian citizen by reason of his naturalization. Petitioner did not deny and admitted the allegations that he was indeed naturalized in Australia. However, Labo contended that since his Australian citizenship has already been annulled, he therefore automatically reacquired his Phil. citizenship and reinstated as a citizen of the Phil.

24

ISSUE : Whether or not petitioner automatically reacquired his Phil. Citizenship on the ground that his Australian citizenship has already been annulled?

HELD : No, the annulment of petitioner’s Australian citizenship did not automatically restore his Phil. citizenship.

Lost Phil. citizenship may be reacquired only through:1) Direct act of congress2) Naturalization or3) Repatriation

It does not appear however that petitioner has reacquired his Phil. citizenship by any of these methods.

AZNAR V. COMELEC185 SCRA 703

FACTS : Lito Osmeña run for the position of provincial governor of Cebu but his candidacy was opposed by Aznar on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen, but an American citizen as he was issued alien certificate of registration and was given clearance and permit to re-enter the Phil. by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. Moreover Aznar assumed that Osmeña must have taken and sworn to the Oath of Allegiance required by the US Naturalization Laws.

Private respondent on the other hand maintained that he is a Filipino citizen alleging that he is the legitimate child of a Filipino, that he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Phil. passport and that he had been continuously residing in the Phil. since birth and has not gone out of the country for more than six months and that he has been a registered voter in the Phil. since 1965.

ISSUE : Whether or not mere possession of Alien Certificate of Registration will automatically vest alien citizenship and automatic renunciation of Filipino citizenship.

HELD : No. Considering the fact that admittedly Osmeña was both a Filipino and an American, the mere fact that he has a Certificate stating he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino.

Osmeña remains a Filipino and the loss of his Phil. citizenship cannot be presumed.

Aznar must first present proof that Osmeña had his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes provided for by law namely:

1) By naturalization in foreign country2) By express renunciation of citizenship and 3) By subscribing to an Oath of Allegiance to support the constitution or laws

of a foreign country.

Hence, the petitioner failed to present any of these direct proof, Osmeña remains a Filipino citizen.

REPUBLIC V. LI YAO 241 SCRA 748

FACTS : LiYao is a Chinese national and was naturalized as a Filipino citizen in 1952. The OSG file a petition to cancel Li Yao’s naturalization on the ground that prior to his naturalization, he made unlawful acts which would disqualify him for naturalization by maliciously evading the payment of his correct income taxes for 1946-1951. Li Yao alleged that he already settled his tax liability under PD.58 which granted tax amnesty and thereby rendered him free of any civil, criminal, or administrative liability.

ISSUE : Whether or not tax amnesty obliterates his lack of good moral character?

HELD : No. Tax amnesty does not have the effect of obliterating his lack of good moral character and irreproachable conduct which are grounds for denaturalization.

Concealment of applicant’s income to evade payment of lawful taxes shows that his moral character is not irreproachable

25

D. Dual allegiance and Dual Citizenship

Through the application of the jus soli and jus sanguinis principles a child born of parents who are nationals of a country applying the principle of jus sanguinis, in a country applying the jus soli principle has dual nationality.

DUAL CITIZENSHIP, is possessed by a person if he is -1. Born of Filipino mothers and fathers in a foreign country, which adopts the principles

jus soli2. Born in the Phil. of Filipino mothers and alien father, if by laws of their alien fathers,

such children are considered as citizens of such country3. Marry aliens if by the law of the latter, the former is considered citizens, unless by

their act or omission, they are deemed to have renounced Phil. citizenship

DUAL CITIZENSHIP vs. DUAL ALLEGIANCEDual citizenship arises when as a result of the concurrent application of the different

laws of 2 or more states, a person is considered simultaneously by a national by the said states. It is involuntary in nature, while Dual allegiance is a situation where a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9255 – “Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003."

Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.

Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:

"I _____________________, solemny swear (or affrim) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.

Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizenship of the Philippines.

Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:

(1) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must Meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing laws;

(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath;

(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted

26

authorities prior to their assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath;

(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice; and

(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who:

(a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or

(b) are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens.

MERCADO vs. MANZANO 307 SCRA 630

FACTS : Mercado and Manzano were candidates for Vice Mayor of Makati City. Manzano won but his proclamation was suspended in view of a pending petition for disqualification filed by a certain Mamaril who allege that Maznzano was not a Filipino citizen but an American citizen. The COMELEC granted the petition and ordered the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of Manzano on the ground that he is a dual citizen invoking Sec. 40 of Local Gov’t. Code which provides that person having dual citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective position.

ISSUE : Whether or not private respondent is a dual citizen?

HELD : No. The phrase “dual citizenship” in RA 7160, Sec. 40 refers to dual allegiance which differs from persons with dual citizenship hence does not fall under the disqualification. By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post, Manzano elected Phil. Citizenship and in effect renounced his American citizenship. Thus, the filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing the disqualification he might have as a dual citizen.

E. PROBLEMS IN APPLYING THE NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE

1. Dual or multiple citizenship

In matters of status, he is usually considered by the forum as exclusively his own national, his additional foreign nationality is disregarded

In case the litigation arises in a third country, the law most consistently applied is that of the country of which the person is not only a national but where he has his domicile or habitual residence, or in the absence thereof, his residence

In view of the rule set in the Hague Convention on Conflict of National Laws, each state determines who its own nationals are. Article 5 thereof provides “a third state shall, of the nationalities which such a person possesses, recognized exclusively in its territory either the nationality of the country of which he is habitually and principally resident, or the nationality of the county with which in the circumstances he appears to be closely connected”. Any question as to whether or not a person possesses the nationality of a particular state shall be determined in accordance with the state’s internal law. Hence it is possible that an individual can be claimed as a national of two or more states.

Application of the jus soli and jus sanguinis – A child born of parents who are nationals of a country applying the principle of jus sanguinis, in a country applying the jus soli has dual nationality. Thus: A Filipino citizen who marries an alien may acquire the citizenship of his or her spouse if the spouse’s national law so allows. A Filipino citizen however, who marries an alien shall retain Philippine citizenship, unless by his act or omission, he is deemed under the law, to have renounced it by taking an oath of allegiance to the spouse’s country or by express renunciation. Another instance of dual or multiple nationalities is the case of an individual who is naturalized citizen of another state but has not effectively renounced his former nationality.

27

In the determination of the rights of an individual who may claim multiple nationalities in the third state, the International Court of Justice applied the principle of effective nationality.”

MULTIPLE CITIZENSHIP ARISES DUE TO:

a. through a naturalized citizen’s failure to comply with certain legal requirements in the country of origin

b. from a combined application of jus soli and jus sanguinis principlec. by the legislative act of statesd. by the voluntary act of individual concerned

OH HEK HOW V. REPUBLIC29 SCRA 94

FACTS : Petitioner a Chinese national filed a petition for naturalization as a citizen of the Phils. He was allowed by the court to take oath of allegiance and was subsequently issued a certificate for naturalization. The Republic opposed on the ground that petitioner has failed to secure from the Minister of the Interior Nationalist China a permission required by laws thereof for a valid renunciation of his Chinese citizenship. Petitioner contends that said requirements is no longer necessary and that the naturalization of an alien as Phil. Citizen is governed exclusively by Phil. Laws and not by any foreign law.

ISSUE : Whether or not a permission from the petitioner’s country is necessary for a valid renunciation is required for naturalization in the Phil.

HELD : Yes. Sec. 12 of the CA 473 requires the petitioner to absolutely and forever renounce all allegiance to any foreign country particularly to the state of which he is a subject or a citizen. Therefore, an applicant cannot be naturalized as a citizen of the Phil. Without first validly renouncing his former citizenship. The purpose is to divest him of his former nationality before acquiring Phil. Citizenship because otherwise he would have two distinct sovereignties which our laws do not permit except:

a) when a foreign country grants the same privilege to Filipino citizens, and b) such had been agredd upon by treaty between the Phils. and that foreign state.

2. STATELESSNESS

refers to an individual who has been stripped of his nationality by his own former government without having an opportunity to acquire another.

Stateless persons are generally subject to the law of their domicile or habitual residence, or in default thereof, to the law of their temporary residence

STATELESSNESS ARISES DUE TO: 1. Deprivation of his citizenship for any cause such as commission of a crime;2. Renunciation of one’s nationality by certain acts, express or implied;3. Voluntary release from his original state;4. He may have been born in a country which recognizes only the principle of jus

sanguinis -- or citizenship by blood, of parents whose law recognizes only the principle of jus soli -- citizenship by birth in a certain place. Thus he is neither a citizen of the country of his parents.

However, the Hague Conference of 1928 on International Private Law suggested that personal law of stateless individuals shall be the law of the domicile or the law of the place of temporary residence.

NOTE: The Convention on the Adoption on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961) mandates that the jus sanguinis country grants its nationality to person born within its territory if he would be otherwise stateless, and the jus soli country to extend its nationality to a person who would otherwise be considered stateless when any of his parents is a citizen of the contracting state

KOOKOORITCHIN V. SOLICITOR GENERAL 81 Phil 435 (1948)

28

FACTS : Petitioner was born in Russia and grew up as a citizen of the defunct Empires of Russia under the Czar government. After WWII, he resided in the Phils. and married a Filipina. He applied for naturalization and was granted. The OSG appealed holding that he is Russian and not a stateless person because he failed to show that under the laws of Russia, he had lost his Russian citizenship. Petitioner contended that he is a stateless person because the empire of Russian had already ceased to exist since the Czar was overthrown by the Bolshevists and that he disclaims allegiance or connection with the Soviet Government.

ISSUE : Whether or not petitioner is a stateless person.

HELD : Yes. The fact that the Czar’s government had been already overthrown and replaced by the Bolshevists to which he disclaims allegiance, he is deemed to be a stateless person. Knowing the history, nature and character of the Soviet dictatorship which is presently the greatest menace to humanity and civilization, it would be technically fastidious to require further evidence of petitioners claims that he is a stateless person that his testimony that he owes no allegiance to the Russian Communist government and because he has been at war with it, he fled from Russia to permanently reside in the Phils. After having established his life in the Phil., marrying a Filipina and joining the guerrillas during the Japanese Regime, it would be fair that his petition for naturalization be granted.

XI. DOMICILE

Municipal Law concept is stated in the Civil Code :Article 50. For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of

natural persons is the place of their habitual residence. (40a)

For juridical persons, domicile is determined by the law creating or recognizing it.

A. DEFINITION One’s true, fixed permanent home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is

absent, he has the intention of returning To acquire a domicile, there must be concurrence of intention to make it one’s domicile and

physical presence, while “residence” simply requires bodily presence of an inhabitant in a given place (Coquia)

Distinctions between residence and domicile1. Residence is an act; while domicile is an act coupled with an intent;2. Residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which he has taken up his abode

ceases; while domicile has no such intent, the abiding is animo manendi.

Domiciliary Theory Is the theory that in general the status, condition, rights, obligations and capacity of a person

should be governed by the law of his domicile (Paras)

Domicile vs. Citizenship or Nationality Domicile speaks of one’s permanent place of abode, in general: while , citizenship and

nationality indicate ties of allegiance and loyalty. A person may be a citizen or national of one state, without being a domiciliary thereof; conversely, one may possess his domicile in one state without necessarily being a citizen or national thereof

CAASI V. COURT OF APPEALS 191 SCRA 229

FACTS : Miguel run and was elected for the position of municipal mayor in Bolinao, Pangasinan. Caasi, the defeated candidate opposed Miguel’s election on the ground that he is a green card holder, hence, a permanent resident of the US. Miguel admitted that he is a green card holder but denied that he is a permanent resident of the US as his intention of obtaining such card is only for convenience in entering the US territory, for his periodic medical examination and to visit his children there. He maintained that he is a permanent resident of Bolinao and that he voted in all elections including the plebiscite for the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. The COMELEC found for Miguel holding that possession of a green card does not sufficiently establish that he has abandoned his residence in the Phil. and inspite of his possession of his green card, he has sufficiently indicated his intention to continuously reside in Bolinao as shown by his having voted in all previous elections. Further, the act of filing of certificate of candidacy constitutes a waiver of status as a permanent resident/immigrant in the US.

29

ISSUE : Whether or not possession of Miguel of a green card constitutes an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Phil.

HELD : Yes. Miguel’s immigration to the US constitutes an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Phil. for he did not go to US merely to visit his children but with the intention to live there permanently as evidenced by his application for an immigrant’s visa. Base on that application he was issued by the US govt. the requisite green card or authority to reside there permanently.

ISSUE : Whether or not mere filing of certificate of candidacy constitutes a waiver of status as a permanent resident in the US.

HELD : No. His act of filing a COC did not constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent resident or immigrant in the US. The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some act or acts independent of and done prior to the filing of his candidacy and without such prior waiver, he is disqualified to run for any elective office.

GARCIA FULE V. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. L-40502, November 29, 1976

FACTS : Petitioner, Virginia Fule filed with the CFI of Laguna a petition for letters of administration alleging, inter alia that Amado Garcia, a property owner of Calamba, Laguna died intestate in Manila, leaving real estate and personal properties in Calamba, Laguna. Preciosa Garcia, the decedent’s wife assailing the jurisdiction of the court since the venue is improperly laid considering that his husband had his last residence at Quezon City as appearing in the deceased’s death certificate and other documents presented by her and Virginia Fule before court. However, Fule filed an amended petition stating that Amado G. Garcia was residing in Calamba, Laguna at the time of his death, and that he was a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention for the first district of Laguna.

ISSUE : Whether or not the deceased’s last place of residence was at Calamba, Laguna.

HELD : No. The SC ruled that the last place of residence of the deceased Amado G. Garcia was at 11 Carmel Avenue, Carmel Subdivision, Quezon City, and not at Calamba, Laguna. A death certificate is admissible to prove the residence of the decedent at the time of his death. 12 As it is, the death certificate of Amado G. Garcia, which was presented in evidence by Virginia G. Fule herself and also by Preciosa B. Garcia, shows that his last place of residence was at 11 Carmel Avenue, Carmel Subdivision, Quezon City.

ISSUE : What does the term “resides” mean? Does it refer to the actual residence or domicile of the decedent at the time of his death?

HELD : This term "resides," like, the terms "residing" and "residence," should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. Even where the statute uses the word "domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence and not domicile in the technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the terms "residence" and "domicile" but as generally used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant." In other words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. No particular length of time of residence is required though; however, the residence must be more than temporary.

SALUDO, JR. V. AMERICAN EXPRESSG.R. No. 159507, April 19, 2006

FACTS : Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr., Congressman of Macrohon, Southern Leyte, filed a complaint for damages against the American Express International, Inc. (AMEX) which stemmed from the alleged wrongful dishonor of petitioner Saludo's AMEX credit card and the supplementary card issued to his daughter. Respondents answered that the complaint should be dismissed on the ground that venue was improperly laid because none of the parties was a resident of Leyte. According to AMEX, Saludo is not a resident of Leyte but of Pasay as shown by his CTC, among

30

others. For his part, Saludo asserted that at the time of filing his complaint, he is the congressman of that district thus he possessed all the qualifications including his being a resident thereof. His CTC was issued in Pasay since he has an office thereat and the same is not determinative of his residence. The court ruled in favor of Saludo holding that the fact alone that he is the incumbent Congressman of Southern Leyte, his residence thereat can be taken judical notice of and a person can have but one domicile at a time but he may have numerous places of residence.

ISSUE : Whether petitioner Saludo was a resident of Southern Leyte at the time of filing of the complaint.

HELD : Yes. In the instant case, Saludo has a house in Makati for purposes of exercising profession or business. He has also a house in Leyte for business and political purposes. So actually, he can have residences in these two places. It would be absurd to acknowledge him as Congressman without recognizing him as resident thereat when such residence is required by law. While a man can have but one domicile at a time but he may have numerous places of residence.

UYTENGSU vs. REPUBLIC95 Phil 890 (1954)

FACTS : Petitioner Wilfred Uytengsu was born of Chinese parents in Dumaguete. He completed his primary and secondary education. Later, he went to the US and studied there. During a 4 month vacation he filed an application for naturalization and left again for the US. Thereafter, he came back to the Phil and his application for naturalization was then granted by the CFI of Cebu.The republic appealed on the ground that petitioner failed to meet the residency requirements laid down by law for naturalization requiring all applicants to reside continuously in the Phil from the date of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission to Phil. citizenship.

Petitioner contends that the word residence laid down by law is synonymous with domicile which one acquired is not lost by physical absence until another domicile is obtained

ISSUE : Whether or not for purposes of naturalization law residence is synonymous with domicile.

HELD : No. Actual and substantial residence within the Phil. not legal residence or domicile alone, is essential to the enjoyment of the benefits of exemption which exempt from the requirement of the filing of a previous declaration of intention “those who have resided in the Phil. continuously for a period of 30 years or more before filing their application.

Petitioner’s habitation in the US amply justifies the conclusion that he was residing abroad when his application for naturalization was filed and for 15 months thereafter, and accordingly, is not entitled in the present proceedings to a judgment in his favor.

B. MERITS AND DEMERITS OF DOMICILE

MERITS –1. In cases where the individual who belongs to a country following the domiciliary

theory is involved in a case before the Philippine courts, his personal status, capacity, condition, and family rights will be governed by the law of his domicile;

2. In cases of stateless persons who may claim dual or multiple nationality, in which case the court will have to refer to their domicile;

3. When an alien domiciled in the Philippines executes a will abroad

DEMERITS –1. One’s domicile is not ascertainable without first resorting to the courts to establish

whether or not there is animo manendi2. The notion of domicile differs widely with some states distinguishing between

residence and domicile or attributing different meanings of domicile for different purposes;

3. If the law of the domicile of origin is given utmost significance, then it will give rise to the same problem as in nationality

C. GENERAL RULES ON DOMICILE1. No person shall be without a domicile;

31

2. A person cannot have two simultaneous domicile since the very purpose for identifying one’s domicile is to establish a connection between the person and a definite legal system;

3. Domicile establishes a connection between a person and a particular territorial unit.4. Once acquired, it remains the domicile unless a new one is obtained:

a. by capacitated personsb. with freedom of choicec. with actual physical presenced. and provable intent that it should be one’s fixed and permanent place of

abode, there should be animus manendi (intent to remain) or animus non revertendi (intent not to remain)

5. The presumption is in favor of the continuance of domicile. The burden of proving a change of domicile is upon whoever alleges that a change has been secured.

ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V. COMELEC248 SCRA 300

FACTS : Petitioner Imelda Marcos filed her certificate of candidacy (COC) for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte. She stated in the COC that she is a resident of the place for seven months. Montejo, a rival candidate, filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification on the ground that Imelda failed to meet the constitutional requirement of one-year residency. COMELEC granted the Petition for Disqualification, holding that Imelda is deemed to have abandoned Tacloban City as her place of domicile when she lived and even voted in Ilocos and Manila.

ISSUE : Whether or not Imelda is deemed to have abandoned her domicile of origin

HELD : An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained residence in different places. Residence implies a factual relationship to a given place for various purposes. The absence from legal residence or domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature does not constitute loss of residence. Thus, the assertion that “she could not have been a resident of Tacloban City since childhood up to the time she filed her certificate of candidacy because she became a resident of many places” flies in the face of settled jurisprudence in which this Court carefully made distinctions between (actual) residence and domicile for election purposes.

For purposes of election law, residence is synonymous with domicile.

UJANO V. REPUBLIC 17 SCRA 147

FACTS : Petitioner Ujano was born of Filipino parent in Ilocos Sur. He left the Phil. for the US from which he acquired American citizenship by naturalization and resided there for 20 years. He returned to the Phil. and was admitted for a temporary stay. He filed a petition to reacquire his Phil. citizenship, intending to renounce his allegiance to the US. However his petition was denied by the court on the ground that he did not have the residence required by law, which is six months before he filed his petition for reacquisition of the Phil. citizenship.

ISSUE : Whether or not petitioner’s domicile is required to reacquire his citizenship.

HELD : Yes. One of the qualifications for reacquiring Phil. citizenship is that the applicant shall have resided in the Phils. at least six months before he applies for reacquisition.

Residence here has already been interpreted to mean the actual or constructive permanent home otherwise known as domicile. A place in a country where he lives and stays permanently and to which he intends to return after temporary absence, no matter how long.

So an alien who has been admitted as a temporary visitor cannot be said to have established his domicile here because the period of his stay her is only temporary and must leave when the purpose of his coming is accomplished.

D. KINDS OF DOMICILE

1. Domicile of origin refers to a person’s domicile at birth.

32

2. Domicile of choice, which is also called voluntary domicile, is the place freely chosen by a person sui juris.

3. Constructive domicile or domicile by operation of law - that which is assigned to a person after birth on account of legal disability caused for instance by minority, insanity or marriage in the case of a woman

NOTE: The forum determines domicile according to his own standards

VELILLA V. POSADAS62 Phil 624 (1935)

FACTS : Arthur Moody was on American citizen who came here in the Phil. and domiciled

therein. Moody died in India, but before his death he executed a will bequeathing all his properties, consisting mainly of bands and shares of stocks of corporations organized under Phil. law in favor of his only sister who was then a citizen and resident of US. The BIR imposed an inheritance tax over those properties inherited by Moody’s sister. Petitioner as administrator was a non-resident of the Phils. and the levy and imposition of inheritance tax over the properties of Moody constitutes a deprivation of property without due process of law.

ISSUE : Whether or not Moody was legally domiciled in the Phil. at the time of his death.

HELD : Yes. There’s nothing on record which would appear that he adopted a new domicile while he was absent from Manila.

To effect the abandonment of one’s domicile, there must be a deliberate and provable choice of new domicile, coupled with actual residence in the place chosen, with a provable intent that it should be one’s fixed and permanent place of abode.

CARABALLO V. REPUBLIC4 SCRA 1055

FACTS : Ricardo Caraballo, petitioner, an American citizen who lives in Clark Field, Pampanga by reason of his enlistment in the US air Force together with his wife to adopt a minor Filipino child. However this was apposed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner is a non-resident-alien because being enlisted as a staff seargent in the US Airforce, his stay in the Phils.is merely temporary.

ISSUE : Whether or not petitioner is a non-resident alien.

HELD : Yes, petitioner is a non-resident alien thus disqualified to adopt. For purpose of adoption, person is deemed to be a resident of a place in a country where he has abode and lives there permanently. It is a place chosen by him freely and voluntarily, although he may later on change his mind and live elsewhere.

A place in a country or stat where he lives and stays permanently and to which he intends to return after a temporary absence no matter how long is his domicile.

GO CHEN AND GO LEK V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS65 Phil 550

FACTS : Petitioners were minor children of Go Tuan and Tan Bon. After Go Tuan’s death, Tan Bon married another Chinese. Shortly thereafter, she came to the Philippines with her second husband. She was admitted as the wife of a Chinese merchant, and has been residing in the Phil. For 8 years. Petitioners remained in china until Tan bon who is engaged in furniture business in Cebu asked them to join her in the Phil. Thereafter, Lek and Chen, arrived in Cebu and took up their abode with their stepmother and brother.

ISSUE : Whether or not Tan Bon is entitled to bring her minor children by her first marriage to the Phil.

HELD : No. A man’s domicile is also a domicile of his wife and minor children and that he is duty bound to protect, support and keep them in his company. A Chinaman’s chinese wife and her minor children, then do not enter the Phil through their own right but by virtue of the right of the husband or father, unless the Chinese wife belongs to the privileged class. Tan Bon who seeks to bring in her minor children, did not enter the Phils. by her own right but by virtue of her second husband’s right

33

thus, she is not entitled to bring in her minor children by another chinaman who never had a legal residence in the archipelago.

DE LA VINA V. VILLAREAL AND GALANO41 Phil 13 (1920)

FACTS : Narcisa Geopano filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo against Diego de la Viña, alleging That she was a resident of the municipality of Iloilo and that the defendant was a resident of Negros Oriental; that she was the legitimate wife of the defendant, having been married to him in Negros oriental that defendant had been committing acts of adultery with one Ana Calog, sustaining illicit relations with her and having her as his concubine and that the defendant ejected the plaintiff from the conjugal home, for which reason she was obliged to live in the city of Iloilo, where she had since established her habitual residence. Upon the said allegations, she prayed for a decree of divorce, partition of the conjugal property and alimony. Dela Vina filed a petition for certiorari on the ground that CFI, Iloilo had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the said action for divorce because the defendant was a resident of Negros oriental and the plaintiff, as his wife, must also be considered a resident of the same province because under the law, the domicile of the husband is also the domicile of the wife. De la Vina asserted that the plaintiff, Geopano could not acquire a residence in Iloilo before their marriage was legally dissolved.

ISSUE : Whether or not Geopano cannot acquire a residence in Iloilo before their marriage was legally dissolved.

HELD : No. It is true that the domicile of the wife follows that of her husband. However there are exceptions namely:

1. The wife may acquire another and separate domicile from that of her husband where the theoretical duty of the husband and wife is dissolved; or

2. Where the husband has given due course for divorce; or

3. Where there is a separation of the parties by agreement, or a permanent separation due to desertion of the wife by the husband or attributable to cruel treatment on the part of the husband; or

4. Where there has been forfeiture by the wife of the benefit of the husband’s domicile.

In the case at bar, defendant’s case comes under one of the exceptions. Therefore, Narcisa may acquire a residence or domicile separate to that of her husband, during the existence of the marriage, where her husband, de La Vina has given course for divorce.

X. PRINCIPLES ON PERSONAL STATUS AND CAPACITY

A. DEFINITION

STATUS

Status, is the place of an individual in a society and consists of personal qualities and relationships, more or less permanent, with which the state and the community are concerned

Personal status is the general term that includes both condition and capacity, and more specifically embraces such matters as the beginning and end of human personality, capacity to have rights in general, capacity to engage in legal transactions, protection of personal interests, family relations, particularly the relations between husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, also transactions of family law, especially marriage, divorce, separation, adoption, legitimation and emancipation, and finally succession both testate and intestate.

CHARACTERISTICS OF STATUS

34

1. Status is conferred principally by the state not by the individual;2. Status is a matter or public or social interest3. Status being a concept of social order, cannot easily be terminated at the mere will

of desire of the parties concerned;4. Status is generally supposed to have a universal character, when a certain status

is created by law of one country, it is generally judicially recognized all over the world

CAPACITY

Capacity more often referred as Juridical capacity, is the fitness of a man to be the subject of legal relations while capacity to act is the power to do acts with juridical effects.

RECTO V. HARDEN100 Phil 427

FACTS : Appelant Esperanza Harden engaged the professional service of Appealee Recto in an action against her husband Fred Harden for divorce whereby it was agreed that Mrs. Harden shall pay Recto 20% of the vale of her share in the conjugal partnership after liquidation. Pending litigation, several instruments were executed by Mr. Harden and Mrs. Harden, mutually releasing and forever discharging each other from all actions, debts and claims to the conjugal partnership. Subsequently Recto filed a manifestation in court that the purpose of said instrument was to defeat his claim of Attorney’s fees and praying that he be payed of Attorney’s fess. Counsel fro both spouses moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the agreement between Recto and Mrs. Harden could not bind the conjugal partnership because it was made without her husband’s consent and that the said contract has for its purpose to secure a decree of divorce in violation of the Art. 1305, 1352, 1409 of the Civil Code.

ISSUES : 1. Whether or not the agreement between Recto and Mrs. Harden binds the conjugal partnership.

2. Whether or not the said contract which is allegedly void shall be governed by Art. 1305, 1352, 1409 of the Civil Code?

HELD : 1. No. The wife merely bound herself and assumed the persona obligation. The contract neither gives any right to her lawyer whatsoever, personal or real, in and to her aforesaid

2. No. Inasmuch as both spouses were citizens of USA, their status and the dissolution thereof shall be governed by Art. 15 of the Civil Code, that is by their nat’l law, by the laws of USA which sanction divorce. In short, the contract between Recto and Mrs. Harden are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

B. Legislative jurisdiction v. judicial jurisdiction Judicial Jurisdiction is the power or authority of a court or administrative tribunal

to try a case, render judgment and execute it in accordance with law while Legislative Jurisdiction which is the power of the state to promulgate laws and regulations and enforce them on all persons and property within its territory (Coquia)

BARNUEVO V. FUSTER 29 Phil 606

FACTS : Gabriel Fuster and Constanza Yañez were joined in a Catholic or canonical marriage in the city of Malaga, Spain.On April, 1899, they made an agreement in a public document, by which they "resolved to separate and live apart. Then, Constanza commenced divorce proceedings against her husband alleging his adultery. She prayed that she be granted a divorce that the conjugal society be liquidated that her share be adjudicated to her and payment of support be ordered. The court then decreed the suspension of life in common between plaintiff and defendant, ordered payment of support and directed plaintiff and defendant that the communal property be divided. Both parties appealed in which both appeals have one common issue relating to the alleged dowry brought into the marriage by the wife in the amount of 30,000 spanish dollars in which Constanza as paraphernal.

35

ISSUE : Whether or not Phil courts may take cognizance of the case to decree the divorce on appeal.

HELD : Yes. In the present action for divorce the Court of First Instance, Manila did not lack jurisdiction over the persons of the litigants, for, although Spanish Catholic subjects, they were residents of this city and had their domicile herein. Foreign Catholics domiciled in Spain, subject to the ecclesiastical courts in actions for divorce according to the said article 80 of the Civil Code, could not allege lack of jurisdiction by invoking, as the law of their personal statute, a law of their nation which gives jurisdiction in such a case to territorial courts, or to a certain court within or without the territory of their nation.

The Courts of First Instance of the Philippine Islands have the power and jurisdiction to try actions for divorce and have the authority to decide on questions concerning foreigners’ status by applying their national law.

FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT

Beginning of personality of natural persons

National Law of the Child (Art. 15, of the Civil Code)

Ways and effect of emancipation National Law (Art. 15, of the CC)Age of majority National Law (Art. 15Use of names and surnames National Law (Art. 15Use of titles of nobility National Law (Art. 15Absence National Law (Art. 15Presumptions of death and survivorship Lex fori (Arts. 43, 390, 391, CC; Rule

131, Sec. 5 (jj), Rules of Court

C. BEGINNING AND END OF PERSONALITY

The determination of the exact moment personality begins is referred to the individual’s personal law. Articles 40 and 41 of our Civil Code give our internal rules on the beginning of human personality.

Article 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article. (29a)

Article 41. For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the foetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb. (30a)

As civil personality is commenced at birth, it is extinguished by death. Under the principle of personal law, a declaration of death issued by a competent court is considered valid for all purposes. Upon the death of a person, some of his rights and obligations are totally extinguished while others are passed on to his successors.

D. ABSENCE

The domestic law of different countries do not treat absentees alike and this has given rise to difficult problems in conflict of laws. There are three suggested ways of dealing with the problem: first, there is a rebuttable presumption that a person is dead when he has been absent for a number of years; second, a person’s unexplained absence is judicially investigated and established which results in legal effects similar to those of death; and third, a judicial decree shall have to be issued declaring the person dead before legal effects of death take place.

Philippine laws follow the rebuttable presumption of the common law. Our Civil Code states:

36

Article 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.

The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. (n)

Article 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate among the heirs:

(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;

(2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four years;

(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four years. (n)

However, for specific purposes, our laws require that a declaration of death be issued before certain legal effects of death arise. For instance, article 41 of the Family Code requires that for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage, the spouse presnt must first institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee spouse without which the subsequent marriage is void ab initio.

E. NAME The law expressly states that “no person can change his name or surname without

judicial authority.” Case law shows the courts have allowed petitions on grounds that the name 1) is ridiculous or tainted with dishonour or extremely difficult to pronounce; or 2) when the change is necessary to avoid confusion; 3) when the right to a new name is a consequence of a change in status; 4) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of a former alien nationality which unduly hamper social and business life.

F. AGE OF MAJORITY The legal disability attached to minority and rights recognized upn attainment of the

age of majority are aspects of personal status. It is the individual’s personal law which determines whether he has reached the age of majority. Once emancipated, parental authority over the person and property of the child is terminated and he is qualified and responsible all acts of civil life save the exceptions established by existing laws in special cases, such as the parent’s continued observance of their responsibilities under article 46 of P.D. 603.

Likewise, although Republic Act No. 6809 lowered the age of majority to 18 years from 21 years, it expressly stated that parental consent for contracting marriage is required until the age of twenty-one.

G. CAPACITY A person’s ability to act with legal effects is governed by his personal law. One’s

personal law is viewed as best qualified to decide what restrictions should be imposed on the individual. Rules on capacity of an individual to bind himself

INSULAR GOV’T. V. FRANK13 Phil 236 (1909)

FACTS : Mr. Frank an American citizen entered into a contract with the Phil. gov’t to serve as a stenographer for a period of two years. He only serve for six months hence petitioner filed a suit against him. Mr. Frank alleged that he was under Phil. law a minor at the time the contract was entered into and was therefore not responsible under the law. However, it was disclosed that the contract was entered into in USA in which Frank was considered an adult.

ISSUE : Whether or not Mr. Frank be held liable.

HELD : He should be held liable, because his capacity to enter into a contract should be governed by his national law.

37

PART FOUR: CHOICE OF LAW PROBLEMS

XI. CHOICE OF LAW IN FAMILY RELATIONSA. MARRIAGE (13 & 14)

Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.

Marriage as a contract has two kinds of requisites:

1. Formal Requisites, generally do not affect the validity of the marriage. Art. 3 of the Family Code provides for three formal requisites namely –

a. authority of the solemnizing officerb. marriage licensec. marriage ceremony where the contracting parties appear before the solemnizing

officer

2. Essential Requisites, affects the validity of the marriage. Art. 3 of the Family Code prescribes two essential requisites to marriage:

a. legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be male and femaleb. consent freely given in the presence of a solemnizing officer

THEORIES ON THE FORMAL REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE –

1. Compulsory Theory – it is imperative for the parties to follow the formalities of the place of celebration (this is followed in the Philippines)

2. Optional Theory – parties may follow either the lex loci celebrationis or their national law. This rule is followed in most countries

3. Ecclesiastical Rule – The formalities of both the lex loci celebrationis and the national law of the parties must be complied with

FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT

Celebrated Abroad Between Filipinos G.R. Lex loci celebrationisExceptions: 1. Art. 26 (solemnized outside the

Philippines), Art. 35, par. 1, 4, 5 & 6, (void ab initio), Art. 36 (incapacity), Art. 37 (incestuous), Art. 38 (public policy) of the family code (bigamous, polygamous & incestuous marriages

2. consular marriagesBetween Foreigners G.R. Lex loci celebrationis

Exceptions: 1. Highly immoral (bigamous, polygamous

& incestuous marriages 2. Universally considered incestuous, ie.

Between brothers-sisters & between ascendants and descendants

Mixed Apply rule on marriages between foreigners – to uphold the validity of the marriage

Celebrated in the Philippines

Between Foreigners National Law (Art. 21, Family Code) provided the marriage is not highly immoral or universally considered incestuous

Mixed National Law of the Filipino (otherwise, public policy may be militated against)

Marriage by ProxyNote: a marriage by proxy is considered celebrated where

Lex loci celebrationis (with prejudice with the foregoing rules

38

the proxy appears

1. Extrinsic validity of marriage

RULES GOVERNING EXTRINSIC VALIDITY

GENERAL RULE lex loci celebrationis1. All states recognized as valid those marriages celebrated in foreign country if they comply

with the formalities prescribed therein (Hague Convention)2. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills and other public instruments shall be governed

by the laws of the country in which they were executed (Article 17, Civil Code)3. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the

country they were solemnized and valid there as such shall also be valid in this country (Art. 26, Family Code)

EXCEPTIONS:

The following are void marriages between Filipinos even if valid in the foreign countrywhere celebrated of in case of mixed marriages celebrated in the Philippines –

1. When either or both parties are below 18 years of age even with parental consent;2. Bigamous and polygamous marriages3. Mistake at to identity of contracting party4. A subsequent marriage performed without recording in the Civil Registry the judgment or

annulment or declaration of nullity and partition and distribution of properties and the delivery of children’s presumptive legitimes;

5. Marriages where either spouse is psychologically incapacitated;6. Incestuous marriages7. Void by reason of public policy

NOTE: These exceptions put into issue the capacity of the parties to enter the marriage and therefore relation to the substantive requirements for marriage. since the personal law of the parties, e.g., the national law of the Filipinos, governs the questions of intrinsic validity of marriages between the Filipinos abroad, the above enumerations are exceptions to lex loci celebrationis precisely because they are controlled by lex nationalii

ADONG V. CHEONG SENG GEE43 Phil 43 (1922)

FACTS : Cheong Boo a native of China died intestate in the Phil. His estate was claimed on one hand by Cheong Seng Gee who alleged that he was a legitimate child of the former by virtue of marriage to Tan Dit in China in 1895. On the other hand, Mora Adong also claimed the said estate by vertue of her marriage to the deceased in 1896 in the Phil. the trial court ruled that Cheong Seng Gee failed to establish the Chinese marriage. Respondent appealed contending that the alleged marriage in China could be sufficiently proven mainly by matrimonial letter.

ISSUE : Whether or not a marriage contracted in China, proven mainly by a matrimonial letter is valid in the Phil.

HELD : No. The rule is that all marriages contracted outside the Phil. which would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were contracted are valid in the Phil. provided that it is first necessary to prove the existence of such foreign law and the alleged foreign marriage by convincing evidence.

In the case at bar there is no competent testimony what the laws of China concerning marriage were in 1895 and the respondent failed to prove the existence of the alleged prior Chinese marriage by a clear and strong and unequivocal evidence as to produce moral conviction of the existence of the alleged prior Chinese marriage.

PEOPLE V. MORA DUMPO62 Phil 246 (1935)

FACTS : Moro Hassan and Mora Dumpo were legally married according to the rites and practices of the Mohammedan. Mora Dumpo allegedly contracted another marriage with another man without her previous marriage being dissolved. Respondent was then prosecuted and convicted of the crime of bigamy. Respondent appealed

39

alleging that her second marriage was null and void according to the Mohammedan rites on the ground that her father had not given his consent thereto.

ISSUE : Whether or not she should be prosecuted for bigamy.

HELD : No. it appears from the Mohammedan rites that before an Imam or Mohammedan priest could solemnize marriage, it is first necessary to secure the consent of the bride’s father or, in the absence thereof that of the chief of the tribe to which she belongs for the marriage to be valid, otherwise absence of such consent would make the marriage void.

In the case at bar there was a failure of the respondent to obtain such consent hence she should not be prosecuted for bigamy.

WONG WOO YU V. VIVO13 SCRA 552

FACTS : In the proceedings held before the Board of Special Inquiry, petitioner declared that she was married to Perfecto Blas a Filipino in China in 1929 an that their marriage was celebrated by a village leader. On the basis of such declaration, the BSI admitted her into the Phil. as a non-quota immigrant. However this decision was reversed by the new set members of the BSI on the ground that there was no substantial basis of a husband-wife relationship between Woo and Blas and that there was some discrepancies found in the statements made by them in sever investigations conducted by immigration authorities concerning their alleged marriage before a village leader in China in 1929.

ISSUE : Whether or not the alleged marriage be given effect in the Phil.

HELD : No. The rule that a marriage contracted outside the Phil. which is valid under the law of the country in which it was celebrated is also valid in the Phil. cannot be given effect in the case at bar because there was no proof presented relative to the law of marriage in China.

In such case we should apply the general rule that in the absence of proof of the foreign law, it should be presumed that it is the same as our own.

Since our law only recognizes a marriage celebrated before any of the officers mentioned under the law and a village leader is not one of them, it is clear that petitioner’s marriage, even if true, cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction.

2. Intrinsic validity of marriage

RULES GOVERNING INTRINSIC VALIDITY

controlled by the parties personal laws (either domiciliary or nationality)

3. Effects of marriagea. personal relations between spouses

MARRIAGE AS A STATUS

Marriage as a status carries with it implications in two fields:

1. Personal rights and obligations of the spouses – personal affair between husband and wife and will not ordinarily be interfered with the courts of justice. Includes mutual fidelity, cohabitation, respect, assistance and support; right of wife to use husband’s surname; duty to follow husband’s residence;

GOVERNING LAW: National law of the husband. Subsequent change of nationality of the spouses are proposed to have the following effects: (Effect of Change)

a. if both will have a common nationality – the new oneb. if only one will change – the last common nationalityc. if there never was any common nationality – the national law of the husband at

the time of the wedding (Hague Convention) (Paras)

it is governed by the NATIONAL LAW OF THE PARTIES.

40

if the spouses are of different nationalities, generally the national law of the husband may prevail as long as said law is not contrary to laws, customs and good morals of the forum.

this includes mutual fidelity, respect, cohabitation, support, and the right of the wife to use the husband’s family name.

Art 69. of the Family Code reads: “The husband and the wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide. The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should lived abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family.”

b. property relations of spouses

GOVERNING LAW: in the absence of a contrary stipulation in the marriage settlement, national of the husband, regardless of the place of celebration of the marriage and their residence. (Paras)

it is governed by the national law of the husband without prejudice to what the Civil Code provides concerning REAL property located in the Philippines

Art 80 of the Family Code provides: In the absence of a contrary stipulation in a marriage settlement, the property relations of the spouses shall be governed by the Phil laws, regardless of the place of the celebration of the marriage and their residence. (Coquia)

However, this rule shall not apply:

a. where both spouses are aliensb. with respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts affecting property not situated in

the Philippines and executed in the country where the property is located; andc. with respect to the extrinsic validity of the contracts entered into in the

Philippines not affecting property situated in a foreign country whose laws require different formalities for their extrinsic validity (Art. 80, Family Code)

NOTE: The subsequent change of the nationality of the husband or the wife has no effect on the spouses’ original property regime EXCEPT when the law of the original nationality itself changes the marital regime, in which case the property relations should change accordingly. This is the DOCTRINE OF IMMUTABILITY IN THE MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY REGIME.

Reasons:1. Marital peace in property relationship shall be more or

less guaranteed;2. The spouse will not be able to prejudice creditors, who in

turn cannot jeopardize the interest of the spouses;3. Even the spouses may protect themselves from each

other.

IMMUTABILITY OF THE REGIME DISTINGUISHED FROM THE MUTABILITY OF THE LAW

While subsequent change of nationality does not affect the original property regime (doctrine of immutability) in the marital property relationship, it cannot be denied that when the law of the original nationality itself changes the marital regime, the property relations has to change accordingly.

B. DIVORCE AND ANNULMENT

Art. 26 of the Family Code provides that : All marriages solemnized outside the Phil, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country except those prohibited under Article 35, 37 and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to remarry under Phil. Law.

41

ANNULMENT/DECLARATOIN OF NULLITY – lex loci celebrationis

Grounds for annulment (if the marriage is voidable merely) and grounds for declaration of nullity (if the marriage is void ab initio) are governed by the law alleged to have been violated; in other words, it is the law of the place of celebration (lex loci celebrationis) subject to certain exceptions, that furnished the grounds

1. Jurisdiction to annul - in practically all civil countries following the nationality principle nationals of the forum are permitted to sue for annulment irrespective of their domicile. In many countries today however, jurisdiction is vested in the court of the domicile of the parties

Jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant is not essential. It is the status of the plaintiff that is in issue. He should be domiciled in the forum.

2. The governing law – lex loci celebrationis (of the marriage) determines the consequences of any defect to form. Generally, the same applies with reference to substantive or intrinsic validity. But with regard to capacity of the parties to marry, their national law is determinative

ABSOLUTE DIVORCES

GENERAL RULE: our courts only observe relative divorce (legal separation). Any divorce sought in the Philippine courts will not be granted Filipino couples cannot obtain absolute divorces abroad and neither shall a valid divorce obtained abroad by Filipino couples be recognized here.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Valid divorce abroad between foreigners whose national law allow divorce

2. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine Law.

Hague Convention provides that the granting of divorce or separation must comply with the national law of the spouses and the law of the place where the application for divorce is made

Grounds for annulment (if the marriage is voidable merely) and grounds for declaration of nullity (if the marriage is void ab initio) are governed by the law alleged to have been violated; in other words, it is the law of the place of celebration (lex loci celebrationis) subject to certain exceptions, that furnished the grounds

1. DIVORCE DECREES OBTAINED BY FILIPINOS

TENCHAVEZ V. ESCANO15 SCRA 355

FACTS : Vicenta Escaño exchanged marriage vows with Pastor Tenchavez, without the knowledge of her parents which was duly registered with the local civil register. The parents of Escaño, alarmed about the scandal that would ensue from the clandestine marriage sought priestly advice. Father Reynes suggested a recelebration to validate what he believed to be an invalid marriage, from the standpoint of the Church, due to the lack of authority from the Archbishop or the parish priest for the officiating chaplain to celebrate the marriage, however, the recelebration did not take place. Escaño left for the United States then she filed a verified complaint for divorce against the herein plaintiff in the State of Nevada, on the ground of "extreme mental cruelty." A final and absolute decree of divorce, was issued by the said tribunal. Escano’s parents filed a petition with the Archbishop of Cebu to annul their daughter’s marriage with Tenchavez with which Vicenta thereafter sought papal dispensation of her marriage. Then, Vicenta married an American, Russell Leo Moran, in Nevada. She acquired American citizenship on 8 August 1958. But on 30 July 1955, Tenchavez filed a complaint against Escaño for

42

legal separation and damages. Vicenta claimed a valid divorce from plaintiff and an equally valid marriage to her present husband. The lower court did not decree a legal separation but freed Tenchavez from supporting his wife, hence this appeal.

ISSUE : Whether or not he divorce filed by Escaño is valid.

HELD : No. It is equally clear from the record that the valid marriage between Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escaño remained subsisting and undissolved under Philippine law, because at the time the divorce decree was issued, Vicenta Escaño, like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen. She was then subject to Philippine law, and Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Rep. Act No. 386), already in force at the time, expressly provided: Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon the citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

The Civil Code of the Philippines, now in force, does not admit absolute divorce, quo ad vinculo matrimonii; and instead of divorce, the present Civil Code only provides for legal separation (Title IV, Book 1, Arts. 97 to 108. From the preceding facts and considerations, there flows as a necessary consequence that in this jurisdiction Vicenta Escaño's divorce and second marriage are not entitled to recognition as valid; for her previous union to plaintiff Tenchavez must be declared to be existent and undissolved. It follows, likewise, that her refusal to perform her wifely duties, and her denial of consortium and her desertion of her husband constitute in law a wrong caused through her fault, for which the husband is entitled to the corresponding indemnity (Civil Code, Art. 2176). Wherefore, her marriage and cohabitation with Russell Leo Moran is technically "intercourse with a person not her husband" from the standpoint of Philippine Law, and entitles plaintiff-appellant Tenchavez to a decree of "legal separation under our law, on

VAN DORN V. ROMILLO139 SCRA 139 (1985)

FACTS : Petitioner is a Filipina citizen while private respondent is an American citizen. They were married in Hongkong but thereafter obtained a divorce in the USA. Subsequently after the divorce petitioner remarried to another American citizen.

Private respondent filed a suit against petitioner before the RTC of Pasig stating that petitioner’s business in Ermita, the GalleonShop is their conjugal property and asking that petitioner should make an accounting because even if they have obtained a divorce in the US, the same is not valid and binding in the Phil. being contrary to law and public policy.

Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and she had no community property.

ISSUE : Whether or not the divorce is recognized as valid in the Phil.

HELD : Yes. A divorce decree granted by a US court between a Filipina and her American husband is binding on the American husband and is recognized as valid in the Phil.

Absolute divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be recognized as valid in the Phil. if valid under the national law of such alien.

Only Phil. nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our public policy and morality.

This ruling does not apply if the divorce is obtained by the Filipina.

An American granted absolute divorce in his country with is Filipina wife is stopped from asserting his right over property allegedly held in the Phils. as conjugal property by him and his former wife.

PILAPIL V. IBAY-SOMERA 174 SCRA 653

FACTS : Petitioner is a Filipina while private respondent Geiling is a German national. Both parties were married in Germany. Subsequently because of some marital disharmony Geiling filed a divorce suit in Germany. Thereafter, the German court granted the divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses.

43

Subsequently after the divorce decree private respondent filed a complaint for adultery before the CFI of Manila against petitioner, alleging that while still married to him, petitioner had affairs with two other men. Petitioner filed for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to try and decide the case3 because there is already a divorce decree between the spouses under the national law of his former spouse prior to the filing of the criminal complaint hence he cannot qualify as an offended spouse.

ISSUE : Whether or not the case be dismissed.

HELD : Yes. The status of the complainant as well as the accused must be determined as of the time the complaint was filed. Thus, the person who initiates the adultery case must be an offended spouse, and by this is meant that he is still married to the accused spouse at the time of the filing of the complaint. In the case at bar private respondent being no longer the husband of petitioner had no legal standing to commence the adultery case, since there was already a valid divorce obtained by him in his country by which its legal effects may be recognized in the Phil. insofar as private respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons.

QUITA V. COURT OF APPEALS300 SCRA 406

FACTS : Petitoner and Arturo Padlan were Filipino citizens and married under the Phil. laws. Because o some marital conflicts, petitioner obtained a divorce in US and subsequently contracted a second marriage still in US. When Arturo died petitioner claimed as a hereditary heir of Arturo contending that their divorce in US is invalid being contrary to law and public policy in the Phil. Private respondent Blandina Padlan on the other hand claimed that she was the lawful heir because Arturo’s previous marriage was already dissolved by virtue of divorce filed by the petitioner in the USA.When the case was elevated in the CA, the latter ordered to remand the case to the trial court because there was factual issue involved. However it was contended by the petitioner that there is no need to remand the case because there was no factual issue involved because what is only to be resolved is whom of them is the proper heir of Arturo.

ISSUE : Whether or not there was a factual issue involved as to remand the case to the trial court.

HELD : Yes, there was, because there is still a need to determine as to what is the citizenship of the petitioner at the time of her divorce of his husband because:

a) If she is no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of the divorce, then she is no longer entitled to inherit from her husband “because a divorce obtained by an alien abroad, is recognized in the Phil. provided they are valid according to his/her national law.

b) But if she is still a Filipino citizen at the time of the divorce, then she is still entitled to inherit from her husband because a divorce by a Filipino citizen abroad is not valid and binding being contrary to law and public policy.

REPUBLIC vs. CIRPRIANO ORBECIDO, IIIG.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005

FACTS : Spouses Cipriano Orbecido and Lady Myros Villanueva got married at Ozamis City and were blessed with two children. Later, Villanueva together with their son left for the US. Thereafter, Villanueva became a naturalized American citizen and later on married an American citizen after obtaining a divorce decree. Cipriano, after learning such facts from his, filed a petition before RTC of Ozamis seeking authority to remarry invoking par.2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code, which was granted. However, the OSG appealed contending that said provision only applies to a valid mixed marriage: that is, a marriage between a Filipino citixen and an alien, but the same was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE : Whether or not Respondent can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.

44

HELD : Yes. The SC is unanimous in holding that par.2 of Artcile 26 of the Family Code should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen who has been divorved by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry.

The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.

LEGAL SEPARATION

There is no obstacle to aliens in securing relative divorce in the Philippines, provided –

1. Their national law is willing to recognized Philippine jurisdiction2. Separation is agreeable to the internal law of the national state o the

parties

NOTE: Grounds for legal separation are the cumulative grounds provided by the national law of the parties (lex nationalii)

2. Validity of foreign divorce between foreigners

The foreign decree of divorce will be recognized as valid here only if the following conditions concur –

a. The foreign court must have jurisdiction to grant the absolute divorce;b. The divorce must be recognized as valid by the national law of the

parties

NOTE: while there is no provision of law requiring Philippines courts to recognize a divorce decree between non-Filipinos rendered by a foreign court, such will be recognized under the principle of international comity unless to do so would violate an important public policy of the Philippines (Coquia)

C. ANNULMENT AND DECLARATION OF NULLITY

The grounds for annulment is governed by the law of the place of the celebration.

The service of summons is governed by the state or the domicile or the residence of the parties.

DISTINCTION: ANNULMENT AND DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE;

A voidable marriage is valid until it is annulled. The remedy here is therefore, Annulment. If the marriage is null and void, there is no need of a declaration of nullity, since there is nothing to annul..

D. Parental Relations1. determination of legitimacy of child2. common law principles on legitimacy3. parental authority over the child 4.

E. Adoption

LEGITIMACY, LEGITIMATION AND ADOPTION

FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT

Paternity and Filiation (including Parental Authority and Reciprocal Support) – legitimacy, legitimation, recognition, presumptions of legitimacy , rights and obligations of parents and children, including parental authority, and reciprocal support

1. if legitimate – national law of the father (Art. 15, Civil Code)

2. if illegitimate – national law of the mother unless recognized by the father in which case, national law of the father (Art. 15, of the Civil Code)

3. determination of whether legitimate or illegitimate (national law of the father, as a rule) (Art. 15, Civil Code)

Doctrine of Immutability of Status – change of parent’s nationality does not

45

affect the status of the childAdoption – creation of the status of adoption; rights and obligations of adopter and adopted

In general, national law of the adopted NOTE: In the Philippines adoption by a Filipino does not confer Filipino citizenship on an adopted alien child

Guardianship 1. over the person a. appointing court b. powers of guardian

2. over the property a. appointing court b. powers of guardian

3. over the person and over the property 4. funerals

court of the domicile of the wardcoextensive with those of the appointing court (law of the appointing state)

court where the property is found (lex rei sitae)coextensive with those of the appointing court (law of the appointing state)

see 3 (a) and 3 (b)

where the body is buried

GOVERNING LAW OF THE LEGITIMACY OF A CHILD The legitimacy of the child is determined by the national law of the parents at the

time of birth, Art. 15, NCC. If the parents belong to different nationalities, legitimacy of the child is determined by the national law of the male parent

NOTE: Presumptions of Legitimacy are not mere rules of evidence but are considered as substantive law, hence, governed as well by the national law of the male parent

RIGHST OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD:1. to bear the surname of the father and the mother;2. to receive support from their parents, brothers and sisters, in proper cases3. to the legitime and other successional rights

NOTE: The law governing the capacity to succeed and the amount of successional rights of the legitimate children are governed by the national law of the decedent

LEGITIMATION

Is the act by which a person not born legitimate, is placed upon the same footing as a legitimate child

LAWS OF REGULATING RELATIONS BETWEEN LEGITIMATE/ LEGITIMATED CHILDREN AND PARENTS

GOVERNING LAW OF THE LEGITIMATED CHILD The national law of the male parent at the time of the marriage shall govern

a. whether legitimation has been effectedb. whether or not the legitimation will have retroactive effectc. other connected matters

Personal law of the father controls the rights and duties of parents and children;EXCEPT: parental interest in the immovable property of the child which may be regulated

by the lex situs

NOTE: Reference to the personal law of the father may result in joint exercise of parental authority over the property of the child by father and mother (Art. 221, Family Code). Father’s personal law could grant parental authority to the mother of the illegitimate children (Art. 176, Family Code)

NOTE: Change in the nationality of the male parent affects the consequent relations between the parents and child

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS INVOLVED UNDER PHILIPPINE LAWS INCLUDE:1. Personal Care2. Parental Authority3. Provide for Education4. Reciprocal Support

LAWS REGULATING RELATIONS BETWEEN ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN

46

Relations between the mother and the illegitimate child are governed by the mother’s personal law.

If the child is later legitimated, personal law of the child follows that of the father

RIGHST OF AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD:1. to bear the surname of the mother;2. to receive support 3. to legitime

ADOPTION is the process of making a child whether related or not to the adoption, possess in

general the rights accorded to a legitimate. (Paras) the act by which relations of paternity and affiliation are recognized as legally existing

between person not so related by nature. (Coquia)

NOTES:

1. Jurisdiction to Grant Adoption – The Philippine Courts shall have jurisdiction to grant petition for adoption but must apply the lex fori with respect to procedural matters

2. Capacity of Aliens to Adopt - The cumulative substantive requirements of the forum and of the national law of the adopter must be complied with (Principle of Cumulation) see Art. 184, Family Code, PD 603, RA 852, Domestic Adoption Act and RA 8043, Inter-Country Adoption Act

3. Effect or Consequences of Adoption –a. successional rights – governed by the conflict rules on successionb. parental authority – governed by the national law of the adopter

4. Recognition of Decree of Adoption - The Philippines recognized the principle of foreign adoptions validly rendered and recognized where effected. However, such adoption is still subject to municipal law, i.e. the obligation to register and adoption in the civil register, except, such adoption shall not be recognized if it is contrary to public policy or residents’ interest forbids its enforcement (Agpalo)

REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS227 SCRA 401

FACTS : James Anthony Hughes as American citizen and his wife Lenita Hughes who was later naturalized as a citizen of USA jointly filed a petition to adopt Ma. Cecilia, and Neil and Mario all surnamed Mabunay, minor niece and nephews of Lenita, who had been living with the couple even prior to the filing of the petition. The minors as well as their parents gave consent to the adoption.

ISSUE : Whether or not the spouses can successfully adopt the three Filipino minors?

HELD : In the case of James being an alien he is not qualified to adopt because under the Family Code, an alien is not qualified to adopt except:

a) A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinityb) One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his/her Filipino spouse orc) One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his or

her spouse a relative by consanguinity of the latter.

In the case of Lenita, although she is qualified to adopt under par. 3(a) of Art. 184 FC, the problem is under Article 185 of the said law, which requires a joint adoption by the husband and wife which is a condition that must be read along together with Art.184. Because Art. 185 of the Family Code provides that:

“The husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in the following cases:

1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child or2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other.

They will not also fall under par.3(c) because Lenita is already naturalized in other country. For joint adoption, it must be necessary that one of them is a Filipino.

UGGI LINDAMAND THERKELSEN V. REPUBLIC12 SCRA 400

FACTS : Petitioners Uggi Lindamand a Danish subject who has been granted permanent residence in the Phil. and his wife Erlinda Blancaflor seeks to adopt the minor

47

Charles Blanclaflor who is the natural child of Erlinda in the former marriage. It appears that the minor sought to be adopted has been living with them ever since the marriage of petitioners and Uggi has treated the minor as his son. The Manila Juvenile and Domesti Ralations Court, denied the application on the ground that an alien cannot adopt a Filipino unless the adoption would make the Filipino minor a citizen of the alien country. Petitioner-husband being an alien, he cannot adopt the minor who is a Filipino citizen, following that of his natural mother.

ISSUE : Whether or not the adoption of minor will prosper.

HELD : Yes, the New Civil Code only disqualifies from being adopters those aliens that are either:

a) Non-residents orb) Who are residents but the Republic of the Phil. has broken diplomatic

relations with their govt. Outside of these two cases, alienage by itself alone does not disqualify a foreigner from adopting a person under the law.

There is no requirement that in order for an alien to adopt, it must be that the adopted Filipino minor becomes a citizen of his country.

NG HIAN V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS34 Phil 248

FACTS : Marcosa Jiongco was born in the Phil. of a Filipino mother and a Chine3se father. She was married to a Chinese citizen. Marcosa Jiongco adopted the child of his husband in the former marriage named Ng Hian, the herein petitioner. When Jiongco and her adopted child arrived at the port of Manila, the respondent refused Ng Hian, the petitioner, to enter the Phil.

ISSUE : Whether or not Ng Hian be allowed to enter the Phil.

HELD : Yes. In the case of Ex parte Fong Yim, the Federal Court of the United States held that “A Chinese merchant domiciled in the US has the right to bring into this country with his wife and minor children legally adopted by him in China, where it is shown that the adoption was confide and that the children have lived as members of his family and have been supported by him for several years.”

In the case at bar, the fact that Ng Hian had been adopted by his stepmother who has the right to enter territory of the Phil., we are of the opinion and so hold that Ng Hian has also the right to enter the Phil. as her adopted son.

48

XII. Choice of Law in Property (19)A. The Controlling LawB. Capacity to transfer or acquire property

LLATINO V. CO LIONG CHONG 188 SCRA 592

FACTS : Petitioners spouses leased their lands in favor of the respondent who was a Chinese national. Knowing that the lease would end in 1967, the Llantinos requested respondent for a conference but the latter did not honor the request and instead informed them that he had already constructed a commercial building on the land, that the lease was for a period of 60 years and that he was already a Filipino citizen. Petitioners filed a case contending that respondent had at the execution of the contract, no right to hold by lease the property involved for being an alien.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contract of lease is valid.

HELD: Yes. A lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid. So is an option giving an alien the right to buy

real property on condition that he is granted Phil. citizenship. Aliens are not completely excluded by

the constitution from the used of lands for residential purposes. The only instance where a contract of

lease may be considered invalid is if there are circumstances attendant to its execution which are

used as a scheme to circumvent the constitutional prohibition that is exemption if an alien is given not

only a lease of but also an option to buy a piece of land without any condition that he is granted Phil.

citizenship.

If the period of lease is unreasonable say 50 years or more, it may amount to an indirect

circumvention of the restriction and will be construed as a sale, in violation of the constitutional

provision.

49

ISSUE :

HELD :

CHEESMAN V. IAC193 SCRA 93

FACTS :

ISSUE :

HELD :

C. Extrinsic And Intrinsic Validity Of ConveyanceD. Exceptions to Lex Situs RuleE. Situs of Certain Properties

1. personal property for tax purposes

ASIATIC PETROLEUM V. CO QUICO69 Phil 433 (1940)

FACTS :

ISSUE :

HELD :

2. money3. debts4. corporate shares of stocks

CIR V. ANGLO CALIFORNIA NATIONAL BANK106 Phil 903

FACTS :

ISSUE :

HELD :

F. Patents, Trademarks, Trade Name, Copyright

PHILIPS EXPORT BV V. CA 206 SCRA 457

FACTS :

ISSUE :

HELD :

50

EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING V. CA251 SCRA 600

FACTS :

ISSUE :

HELD :

XIII. Choice of Law in Contracts (21)A. Contract involving a foreign elementB. Extrinsic validity of contractsC. Intrinsic validity of contracts

1. lex loci contractus2. lex loci solutionis3. lex loci intentionis

D. Capacity to enter into contracts

E. Choice of law issues in conflicts contracts cases55. King Mau v. Sycip, 94 Phil 784 (1954)56. HSBC v. Sherman, 176 SCRA 33157. Puromines Inc. v. CA 220 SCRA 28158. Pan Am World Airways v. Rapadas, 209 SCRA 6759. Philippine Airlines v. CA, 255 SCRA 4860. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. CA, 65 SCRA 237

XIV. Choice of Law in Wills, Succession and Administration (20)A. Extrinsic validity of wills

61. In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil 156 (1918)B. Intrinsic validity of wills

62. Cayetano v. Leonidas, 129 SCRA 522 (1984)C. Interpretation of willsD. RevocationE. Probate

63. Suntay v. Suntay, 95 Phil 500 (1954)64. Vda. De Perez v. Tolete, 232 SCRA 722

F. Administration of estates65. Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated Inc., 26 SCRA 241

G. Trusts

XV. Choice of Law in Torts and Crimes (22 & 23)A. Synopsis of conflicts rulesB. Liability and damages for torts in generalC. Locus DelictiD. Crimes v. Torts

66. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA, 297 SCRA 46967. Time Inc. v. Reyes, et al., 39 SCRA 30368. Liang (Huefeng) v. People of the Phils., GR 125865 (2000)

XVI. Choice of law affecting corporations and other juridical entitiesA. Corporations

1. Personal law of corporations69. M.E. Grey v. Insular Lumber Company, 67 Phil 139

2. Exceptions to the rule of incorporation test70. Palting v. San Jose Petroleum, 18 SCRA 92471. Filipinas Compania v. Christern, 89 Phil 54 (1951)

3. Domicile or residence of foreign corporation72. State Investment House, Inc. v. Citibank, 203 SCRA 9

4. Jurisdiction over foreign corporations5. Right of foreign corporations to bring suit

51

73. Home Insurance v. Eastern Shipping Lines, 123 SCRA 42474. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cebu Stevedoring, 17 SCRA 1037

6. exceptions to license requirement75. Leviton Industries v. Salvador, 114 SCRA 42076. Hang Jung Bank Ltd. v. Saulog, 201 SCRA 13777. Philippine Columbia Enterprises v. Lantin, 39 SCRA 376

B. Special CorporationC. Partnership

PART FIVE: FOREIGN JUDGEMENTS (4)

XVII. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign JudgmentsA. Distinction between recognition and enforcementB. Bases for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign JudgmentsC. Policies Underlying Recognition and EnforcementD. Requisites for Recognition and Enforcement

78.Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. v. CA, 241 SCRA 19279. Boudard v. Tait, 67 Phil 170 (1939)80. Ramirez v. Gmur, 42 Phil 855 (1918)81. Borthwick v. Castro, 152 SCRA 22982. Querubin v. Querubin, 87 Phil 124 (1950)

E. Grounds for non-recognitionF. Procedure for enforcement

52