CONFLICT OF LAWS

Prelim Transcript
S.Y. 2014-2015

6-17-14
What is the definition of Conflict of
Laws?
Conflict of Laws (Private Internatl Law) is that
part of municipal law of a state w/c directs its
courts and administrative agencies, when
confronted w/ a legal problem involving a
foreign element, whether or not they should
apply a foreign law.

There are 4 important elements:
1) It is part of the mun law of a state
2) There is a directive to courts &
administrative agencies
3) There is a legal problem involving a
foreign element
4) There is either an application on non-
application of a foreign law

Usually in every state there are laws which
deal w/ cases involving foreign element. So in
our jurisdiction conflict of law is part of the
municipal law of the state w/c directs its courts
and administrative bodies when confronted w/
a case involving a foreign element whether or
not to apply the foreign laws.

First, it is part of ones municipal law. This
particular portion of mun law directs the courts
and administrative agencies of that particular
country when confronted w/ a legal problem
involving a foreign element, whether or not to
apply the foreign law.

Sample case: Juan dela Cruz, a Filipino
marries a Filipina in Cebu. The marriage is
solemnized by a foreign priest, a German natl.
The issue to be resolved is, what law will govern
the validity of such marriage? Does the case
involve a foreign element?

Ans: NO. Puros Pinoy. Ang celebration nara sa
ato. What leads us to be confused that there is
a foreign element is because of the presence of
German natl, a foreign priest. Dili na mo-count.
No conflict of laws.

Sample problem: Supposing there is a
Filipino marrying a British natl. Their marriage
is solemnized in Hongkong. Klaro kaau naay
foreign element. This will be a part of conflict of
law case. What is impt is that a foreign element
should be involved before you apply conflict of
laws.

If it deals w/ marriage, our guide is lex
loci celebraciones (where the marriage takes
place).

Another case is when there is a will.
Mghimu ug will ang usa ka tawo, again lex loci
celebraciones. But sometimes a foreign element
will come in labi na kung ang mghimu sa will dili
Pinoy. Under our Civil Code, we dont have oral
will. What we have is the holographic or the
notarial will. Now in some part outside the
Phils., for instance Massachusetts, they allow
oral will (exclusive for seamen & military).

We have a case filed in RTC Makati.
Incidentally, the case involves a foreigner.
Assuming that we have jurisdiction over that.
Can the RTC Makati not assume jurisdiction?
NO. We are sovereign over our state, our courts
cannot assume jurisdiction over a foreign case.
Wlay magbuot.

What is the basis for a court or tribunal
who has a jurisdiction over a particular case
involving foreign element but still it refuses to
assume jurisdiction? First, we are sovereign. 2
nd
,
there could be a reason for refusing to assume
jurisdiction. One reason is, not all parties are in
the Phils., The witnesses may be residing
abroad perhaps. The documents w/c may be
presented as evidence may be somewhere else.
There is what we call Forum non conveniens
meaning to say there will be a lot of
inconveniences that will be shouldered by the
court once it assume jurisdiction.
It might be jurisdiction over the subject matter,
over the res, over the person. talking about
jurisdiction, any court or tribunal hearing a case
but w/o jurisdiction whatever decision will be
null and void.

In the Philippines, there is what we call
legitime. Here is a case involving foreign
element. Lets say a citizen of Nevada USA. This
citizen executed a will in their place.
Fourtunately 1 of his children is a Filipino-bprn
child. Pg execute sa will & testament wla taga-e
ang iyang anak dri sa Phils. ky wla mn taga-e ni
reklamo siya. Ky naa mn property sa Phils. so in
the probate proceedings, ma-question ang will
& testament. What could be the basis for
resolving this issue? Unfortunately, the
applicable law is that place where the will is
made (Nevada, USA). In Nevada they do not
observe legitime. Ang nahitabo wlay bahin
kaning anak sa Pilipinas. If you are the counsel
for this Filipino child, what will be your stand,
insist? NO bec the formalities to be observed is
the place of the celebration of the contract, the
place where the will & testament was executed.
When we try to determine the legal
status or the legal capacity of a person ang ato
dri sa Phils is lex nationalii. Meaning imung
capacity, rights & obligations will be determine
by your national law. That is why when we have
a marriage to be celebrated in the Phils, and all
of the parties are aliens & foreigners (parehas
aning Amerikano mangasawa ug pinay), there is
a requirement of legal capacity to marry. Our
guiding law, is the national law of the party
concerned. Ug additional requirement nga
CENOMAR (Cert of No Marriage).

In the assumption of jurisdiction, 2
things will be at issue: one, apply internal law or
apply the foreign law . if it is basically w/in our
internal law then internal law will apply. But in
some cases, we have to apply the foreign law.
For example kaning succession, is part of the
whole law itself (naay separate section sa Civil
Code). Now in cases of foreign law, what should
we apply? Is it the foreign law itself or only a
section thereof? That will be discussed later on
in our next topics.

There are cases where jurisdiction may
be at issue actually. Do we have jurisdiction?
Yes we have. Are we forced to apply it? No. 1
st

reason, sovereignty. 2
nd
reason, forum non
conveniens.

Supposing you come across a case
involving marriage. Sa ato wla mn ta divorce.
We have only what we call relative
divorce/legal separation. Ang issue ani for
example a Filipina marries a foreigner. After the
marriage, the Filipina was brought by a foreign
husband to the States. Right there, they applied
for divorce. Then a decree for absolute divorce
was issued by the court. Suppose the Pinay
comes back to the Phils and sees her 1
st
love, a
Filipino. Can she marry? Now remember the
divorce in the US was applied by the foreigner.
After the divorce, the foreigner can remarry.
The Filipina can also remarry. It would be unfair
nga ang foreigner mka minyu nya ang ato ky
dili. How about the effects of that decree
obtained by the foreigner husband concerning
properties in the Phils? We dont recognize
divorce but how about the effects of that
decree?

Now there is an actual scenario. There
is a divorce decree obtained by the spouses.
Originally both of them are Fil but they became
American citizens right in the States. Ang asawa
ni file ug divorce. At the time of the filing for the
petition of abs divorce, they became American
citizens. And in that very decree was a
statement, all properties in the US belong to the
wife while all the prop in the Phils belong to the
husband. Can the husband become the conjugal
owner of their prop in the Phils? YES but dli na
dretso mabalhin dayun. There is such thing as
recognition of a foreign judgment. Before any
foreign judgment may be effective in the Phils,
there must be 1
st
recognition and motion of
execution. A judgment or decision of a foreign
tribunal will only be effective of the court itself.
it has no extraterritorial jurisdiction. To make
that implemented or effective outside the court
of US, 1
st
recognition and then enforcement.

6-24-14
WHEN A FORUM OR LOCAL TRIBUNAL HAVING
JURISDICTION OVER A CONFLICT OF THE CASE.
Meaning to say there is a forum having
jurisdiction over the conflict of the case. What
are the 2 alternatives that the said forum or
tribunal may exercise?
1) Apply internal law or domestic law or
lex fori
2) Apply the proper foreign law or lex
causae

Three Instances why we need to apply
the Internal Law or Domestic Law or Lex
fori:
1. When the law of the forum expressly
provides it. (Civil Code of the Phils)
2. When the proper foreign law has not
been properly pleaded in the case.
3. When the case practically involves any
exception to the proper application of
the proper foreign law.
Ex. when the said foreign law
contradicts a sound & established policy
of the forum.
-When the foreign law contradicts a
universal & well-accepted principles of
morality.
-When the said foreign law involves a
penal statute or law.
-when a situation involves a purely
fiscal law or provision.
-When the application of the foreign
law constitutes undeniable injustice to
the residence of the forum.
-When the case involves real or
personal property. (follows lex rei sitae
where the property is located)

WHEN THE FORUM EXPRESSLY
PROVIDES THE APPLICATION OF INTERNAL OR
DOMESTIC LAW.
Sample Problem. We have for instance a Filipino
father having a Chinese son/child. The father
died and the estate of the father shall be
distributed in accordance w/ Phil law in
accordance w/ art 16 par.2 of the Civil Code.
Naturally the capacity of the child to inherit
shall also be governed by the national law of
the father (lex nationalii) even if the child is said
to be Chinese.
*Upon the death of the person leaving an
estate there should be a notice of death to be
send to the BIR and the period allowed by law
for the sending of this notice is 2 months or
60days. W/in the period of 6 months from the
period of death, there should be settlement of
the estate. And the settlement should be either
extrajudicial or judicial.
*Extrajud settlement- this is merely execution
of an instrument.
*Jud settlement- kung mgkagubot ang heirs it
will be the court that will settle the estate.

Let me remind you that a case can only
be considered a CONFLICT OF LAW CASE if and
when there is a foreign element involved.
For instance, 2 Fil got married. The marriage
was solemnized in Cebu Cathedral by a Jesuit
priest. Is this a conflict of law case? NO, because
there is no foreign element involved. (Jesuit.
Foreigner. its a trap!)

Another sample problem: there is a Fil
gentleman who marries an American. During
the marriage, the husband earns 250K w/ w/c
he purchase a house located in the Phils. This
involves a Parity amendment affecting a US
citizen. What will be the status of the said
house? Bec. we were governed by the special
law on Parity Amendment, the house is
considered a separate property.

Can a Filipina now a naturalized US
citizen acquire properties in the Phils? YES. This
is in accordance w/ Act 185 intended for
Filipinos who are naturalized in the US. Once a
Filipino, remains to be a Filipino.

Heres a case concerning succession. A
case in the probate of the will made by a
Nevada citizen. Nevada law was presented as
evidence. In the hearing there was more or less
a presentation of the document regarding the
partition of the estate. In the case, the foreign
law was not introduced. In the partition, is it
still necessary to reintroduce the Nevada law?
As held in the case, NOT ANYMORE. What is
important is this, if you want to apply foreign
law you should see to it that it is alleged and
pleaded in the case. In the absence of the
pleading of that particular foreign law, that
foreign law cannot be applied.

Heres a case of a will executed in
Massachusetts by an American decedent. He
has a Fil child. In the will he did not get any part
of the estate to his Fil child. Unfortunately in
accordance w/ the law of Massachusetts, there
is no probation of legitime. In the Phils., we
observe legitime that part of ones estate is
reserved for the compulsory heirs. The fil child
asserted his part of the estate as legitime.
Unfortunately the will executed in
Massachusetts shall be governed by the law of
Massachusetts.

7-01-14
The different theories why in some
cases we apply conflict of laws or why a foreign
judgment may be given effect in our
jurisdiction. The 1
st
theory, is the theory of
comity. Under this theory, we apply the foreign
law bec of its convenience and we want to give
protection to our citizens, residents, and
transients in our land. Now we are part &
member of the UN organization, we usually try
to apply any foreign law first of convenience.
We want to protect our very own nationals,
residents or transients in the Phils as well as our
very own nationals who may be residents of
foreign states. Ky mahadlok mn ta usahay kung
naay decision before our local tribunal nya this
very decision is also similar to a decision
affecting our very own citizen before a foreign
tribunal. So out of a gesture of comity we give
effect to this foreign judgment w/c is now
before a local tribunal or forum.

The 2nd theory is the theory of vested
rights. We enforce a foreign law not bec of that
very foreign law but we must enforce rights
vested by foreign law. Meaning we are
enforcing the rights vested by that foreign law.
For instance the case, a New York resident was
killed in Massachusetts by homicide through
reckless imprudence. Now a case was brought
not in Massachusetts but in New York. The case
is for damages which was patterned after the
law in Massachusetts w/c award damages in
cases like this (accident w/in Massachusetts the
injured party is entitled to an award of
damages). The defendant alleged that the court
of New York cannot apply the law of
Massachusetts because basically a particular
law is only implementable w/in its territorial
jurisdiction. The issue is, may the court of New
York entertain the case and award damages?
YES, applying the theory of vested rights. It is
not exactly applying the law but rather applying
the right vested by that particular law.

Here is another problem: A Chinese
natl dies in the Phils leaving properties in
Manila. Under that particular provision in the
Civil Code w/c we consider a conflict rule w/c I
mentioned before that a conflict rule is that
provision in our Civil Code w/c is intended to be
applied either to serve a legal problem involving
a foreign element(art 16 sec 2). Successional
rights shall be governed by the natl law of the
decedent. Since in the problem, decedent is a
Chinese natl then apply Chinese law. Our basis
for this is our very own law.

3
rd
theory is theory of local law. We
apply the foreign law not because it is foreign
but we apply it bec our own conflicts rule
directs us to apply it. Its as if the foreign law has
become part and parcel of our own local law. So
ang basihan ky atong Civil Code itself dili knang
foreign law.

The 4
th
theory is what we call, theory
of harmony of laws. Basically, we want to
harmonize laws. This is so that wherever a case
is decided, irrespective of the forum, the soln
should be approximately the same: thus,
identical or similar solutions anywhere and
everywhere. Other states has also their own
conflict rules. So, vis--vis our own conflicts rule
we want to harmonize for purposes only of
actually giving effect to that particular law or
judgment. We harmonize the laws.

The 5
th
theory, the last one w/c is common to
all jurisdictions, the theory of justice. The
purpose of all laws is to dispense justice. In
applying a foreign law, is to more or less obtain
the goals on ends of justice.

Moving on to nature and proof of
foreign judgment. Basically, a judgment by itself
has no extraterritorial application. It will only be
applicable w/in the territorial jurisdiction of the
forum or tribunal making it so that it can only
be enforced w/in the territory of the tribunal
issuing that judgment.

Lets say here is a judgment of absolute
divorce rendered by a foreign tribunal. The
winning party now wants it to be implemented
in the Phils. The absolute decree was rendered
in Reno, Nevada and the winning party is a
Filipino. A judgment to be effective in a foreign
country, it should be proved 1
st
that it is in
accordance w/ our prescribed rules. As far as
rules of procedure are concerned, our rules will
apply.

For instance in 1 case, a Chinese natl
applied for naturalization in the Phils. He wants
to be a Filipino. After complying w/ all the
requirements, he has all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications. The body grants it.
But there was an issue. In the Chinese law, he is
required to inform the Chinese office that he is
granted for applying for Filipino citizenship.
That is their rule of procedure. Is there a need
for that particular provision of their own rules in
order to be a naturalized Filipino? NO. We
adhere to our own rules of procedure.

1
st
and foremost is recognition, di ta
maka implement sa usa ka decision sa foreign
tribunal unless we recognize it. Meaning to say
our court will allow same foreign judgment to
be presented as defense in the case.

Can we have also this principle of res
judicata? Now this is recognition that our courts
will allow this particular foreign judgment will
be used as a defense in the case before our
court. On the other hand, when we talk about
reinforcement. There is reinforcement when
the plaintiff wants that the court positively
carry out that particular decision of the foreign
tribunal. Usually there is a motion for issuance
of writ of execution so that this particular
bound decision will be given effect in the Phils.

Heres a sample problem: a Filipino
husband and wife in collusion w/ each other
obtained a legal decree of absolute divorce.
After the husband acquired a residence
requirement for purposes of acquiring an
absolute divorce decree. Will this foreign
divorce decree be made effective in our
jurisdiction? NO. It cannot be given effect here
bec in lieu of the collusion and in view of the
fact that absolute divorce is not recognized here
in the Phils.

The judgement must be a civil or
commercial matter bec if it is penal in nature,
no effect. Criminal laws are to be implemented
only w/in territorial jurisdiction. Kung dri ka
patyon sa Pilipinas and kaso dri sa Pilipinas.
Kung ddto ka patya sa New York ang kaso ky sa
New York.

The 3rd requirement is mentioned in
the negative. There must be no lack of
jurisdiction, no want of notice, no collusion, no
fraud, no clear mistake of law and fact. That
particular foreign judgment for purposes of
recognition and enforcement in our jurisdiction,
must not contravene a sound established public
policy of the forum. The judgment must be res
judicata in the state w/c issued or rendered it.

What are the requirements of res judicata?
1. The judgment must be final.
2. The court rendering the judgment must
have jurisdiction.
3. The judgment must be on the merits.
When you say on the merits, there was
a hearing. Facts presented are
established for purposes of supporting
the case of the plaintiff. Take note that
there are some decision or judgments
w/c says w/o prejudice meaning to say
there could be another filing of the
case. Pero w/ prejudice gani, ma-apply
na ani ang res judicata.
4. There must be identity of parties,
identity of subject matter, identity of
cause of action.

Not all foreign judgments are enforced and
recognized in the phils. These are the requisites:
1) Requisite of truth of the judgment may
not be adequate.
2) If that judgment contradicts our
established policy.
3) When that judgment contradicts
another judgment w/c is our own
judgment.
4) The judgment may corrupt the
administration of justice.

7-08-14
Chapter 4. We will be dealing w/the
nature and proof of the foreign judgment.
Basically we should know that a foreign
judgment by itself does not have any
extraterritorial application. It will only be
effective and applicable in the state w/in its
jurisdiction. Before making a foreign judgment
effective w/in our jurisdiction, there must be
recognition first. In what manner perhaps do
we manifest that we recognize a certain foreign
judgment? When our courts allow that foreign
judgment to be a defense in the case. This is
what we call res judicata.

To illustrate where we have a
recognition of a foreign judgment. An American
in Manila is sued for bigamy. He presents as
part of his defense, that decree of absolute
divorce w/c accdg to this American defendant
dissolved its previous marriage. In this case
what he wants as a defense is for the court to
recognize that foreign judgment proving the
dissolution of his prior marriage. If the court
recognize it then he could no longer be
prosecuted for bigamy bec that foreign
judgment dissolved his previous marriage. But
take note under our Family Code, wherein a
Filipina is married to an American but for some
reason the American husband applies for a
decree of absolute divorce w/c was granted by
a foreign law making the husband qualify to
remarry. The issue to be resolved is this, we do
not recognize divorce but in such a situation
where the absolute divorce decree is obtained
by the American making him qualify to remarry
we must reason also that we allow our Filipino
counterpart to remarry. It would be grossly
unfair nga atong Pinay nga igsuon dina nuon
mka minyu.

Since we are now in these 2 terms,
recognition then enforcement. If we have
recognition bec the court allows it as a defense
then how about enforcement? In enforcement,
the plaintiff now asks the court to positively
carry out that foreign judgment. We have some
reasons why foreign judgment may not be
recognized in our country. The reasons are: 1)
The requisite proves that the law may not be
proper or adequate. 2) It contravenes our
established public policies. 3) They contradict
one another. 4) In some countries, the
administration of justice may be corrupt.

Actual requisites for recognition &
enforcement of foreign judgment:
1. There must be proof of such foreign
judgment.
Kung ang gi-present clippings lng in
some newspapers or comments from
jurisprudence of other states or
perhaps mga hearsay, di pwede bec
there is no sufficient proof of that
particular judgment. What could be
presented? Case digest or journals of
foreign judgments- as required they
must be duly certified or authenticated
by the agency from w/c it is obtained.
2. The judgment must refer to civil or
commercial matters. Not in criminal
matters.
3. There must be jurisdiction, notice, no
collusion w/in the parties, no mistake of
fact and law.
4. The judgment must not contravene a
well-established policy of our forum.
5. The judgment must be res judicata.

Requisites for res judicata:
a) The judgment must be final.
There is a case concerning the filing of a
motion for reconsideration (MFR). Take
note, a MFR does not affect the running
period of prescription. If there is a
motion for reconsideration, then the
motion is denied you have to see to it
that you make an appeal w/in
reglementary period.
b) The court rendering the judgment must
have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is actually
the authority of the court to decide. So
that when the court decides a case and
it has no jurisdiction, the judgment or
ruling is totally null & void.
c) The judgment must be on the merits.
Like for instance, a judgment rendered
on a land registration case may be
dismissed. Usually the dismissal is w/o
prejudice. Ky kung w/ prejudice gani di
naka mka refile sa kaso. But in some
cases, it can be dismissed nya wlay
ingon nga w/ or w/o prejudice. How
should we deal w/ this? To comply w/
this requisite, knang hearing na wa ni
appear and defendant or wa ni appear
ang prosecutor in behalf of the SolGen
usually ang decision ani on dismissal is
w/o prejudice. So there is yet no
presentation of evidence in behalf of
the petitioner or the plaintiff. This is not
a judgment on the merits of the case.
d) There must be identity of parties,
subject matter and cause of action.

Now, when we have a foreign
judgment, we usually have to characterize
conflict rules. If the court has jurisdiction,
1
st
it has to apply internal law. 2
nd,
the
foreign law. When the foreign law is
applied, pili-an pa gyd. Either apply the
foreign law in its entirety or a portion only
of that foreign law. When we characterize
conflicts rule, we usually have to set the
facts and then we determine under what
category the set of facts belong.

It would seem that when our courts
enforce a foreign judgment by allowing it,
the effect is that it is really our own courts
judgment that we enforce.