Doctrine of Comitas Gentium
States are not obligated to take note of foreign laws unless
imposed by Treaty
Doctrine of Pure Territoriality
- Laws of every state operate within the territorial limits, and
such is binding to all subjects but not beyond those limits
Principle of Forum Non Conveniens
- Belief that the matter can be better tried and decided
elsewhere, either because the main aspect of the case
transpired in a foreign jurisdiction, or the material witnesses
have residence there, etc. Or it would not entertain the suit if it
believes itself to be a serious inconvenient forum, provided that
a more convenient forum is available to plaintiff;
The court is to take cognizance of the case and apply
domestic law
- EXCEPTION: 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
Exceptions to the Application of Foreign Law
The enforcement of the foreign law would run counter to an
important public policy of the forum
Where the application of the foreign law would infringe good
morality as understood in the forum
When the foreign law is penal in nature
Where the foreign law is procedural in nature
When the question involves immovable property in the forum
When the foreign law is fiscal or administrative in nature
Where the application of foreign law would involve injustice
or injury to the citizens or residents of the forum
Where the application of foreign law would endanger the vital
interests of the State
Theory of Comity
- This theory asserts that the application of foreign legal
systems in cases involving foreign element is proper because
their non-application would constitute a disregard of foreign
sovereignty
Vested rights theory
- Based on the concept of territoriality under which the court
can apply only its own territorial law.
Local Law Theory
- A foreign rule cannot be applied unless it has been
“appropriated” by the State of the forum and transformed into a
domestic rule
Usual Method in Disposing of CoL Cases:
- The court characterizes/identifies the legal category into
which the case before it falls (property, domestic relations, tort,
succession). Apply the proper connecting factor for that
category of case in order to choose the State/territorial
jurisdiction whose legal system will determine the parties’
respective rights, duties and other legal relations
a. Jurisdiction-selection
- Requires the court to apply the law of the
country/jurisdiction chosen by the conflicts rule, irrespective of
the content of the particular rule of law selected (e.g. lex loci
contractus)
b. Rule-selection
- Emphasizes a choice between different substantive
rules of law in light of the policies at issue (Method of
solving/approaching a solution to the choice of which of
competing norms should govern)
State Interest Theory
- When a court is asked to apply the law of a foreign State,
different from the law of the forum, it should inquire into the
policies expressed in the respective laws, and into the
circumstances in which it is reasonable for the respective
States to assert an interest in the application of those policies
thru construction and interpretation. If the court finds that one
state has an interest in the application of its policy in the
circumstances of the case and the other has none, it should
apply the law of the only interested State (e.g. lex situs rule)
a. Functional Approach
- Aims at solutions that are “the rational elaboration
and application of the policies and purposes underlying specific
legal rules and the legal systems as a whole”
- Locate the concerned jurisdiction, Construct for each
concerned jurisdiction a regulating rule that takes account both
of relevant policies expressed through the jurisdictions
domestic rules and of policies peculiar to multi-state
transactions as distinguished from wholly domestic
transactions
b. Comparative Approach
- Led by Ernest Rabel, the method brings out the
similarities and dissimilarities, examined their purposes and
effects, showed to what extent unification or reconciliation is
feasible and proposes specific solution in the context of the
needs and requirements of a growing international community
Convenient Forum Theory
- Application of foreign law in such a convenient forum, which
implies substantial connection with a given conflict problem,
must be analytically understood as an exception from the basic
rule calling for the application of the lex fori. However, the state
should not hesitate to apply foreign law where legislative or
settled judicial rules of choice of law or the policy of the forums
domestic rules require a different answer and may actually
result in a greater application of the laws of other states
The Harmony of Treatment and Uniformity of Result
Theory
- If to every conflict case the court were to apply only the law of
the forum, the result of the suit would depend entirely on where
it is instituted. Equal justice under the law requires that the
decision be the same wherever the claim is brought. However
the quest for uniformity has become more difficult since the
international order envisioned by Savigny has broken up
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD/PROVE FOREIGN LAW
- Dismiss the case with judgment for the defendant
-That the plaintiff relying on foreign law had failed to prove an
essential part of his case
-Not to dismiss the case, but to hold that where foreign law is
not properly pleaded or proved, the presumption of identity or
similarity arises namely that foreign law is the same as
domestic law not to dismiss the case, but to assume that by
failing to plead or prove foreign law, the parties acquiesced in
having their controversy determined by the law of the forum
Exception: RP court can take judicial notice evidently through
its own actual knowledge and research whenever it has reason
to believe it is familiar with some foreign law that is generally
known or has actually been ruled upon in cases before it
Under the traditional view, foreign law is not applied in the
forum in the following cases:
Where its enforcement would run counter to some important
public policy of the forum Its application would lead to an
infringement of good morality in the wider sense of the term as
understood in the forum
1. When foreign law is penal in nature
2. When the foreign law is procedural in nature
3. When the question relates to immovable property in the
forum
4. When the foreign law is fiscal or administrative in nature
5. When the application of foreign law would involve injustice
or injury to the nationals or residents of the forum
6. When the application of foreign law would endanger the
foreign relations or vital interests of the state
7. These exceptions are not mutually exclusive as most
overlap each other
Doctrine of disparitas cultas
- consider local concepts of morality as universally established
and applicable in all situations
- The situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is or is
deemed to be situated. In particular the lex situs is decisive
when real rights are involved The place where an act has been
done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has
been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort
committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in
contracts and torts
Nationality principle
Article 15 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution – “Laws relating
to family rights and duties or to status, condition and capacity
of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even
though living abroad.”
2 theories determine whether the place or ancestry determines
citizenship.
Jus Soli – Citizenship follows the place of Birth
Jus Sanguinis – Citizenship follows the citizenship of his
parents.
The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens:
1. Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with
any association or group of persons who upholds and teach
doctrines opposing all organized governments;
2. Persons defending or teaching the propriety of violence,
personal assault, or assassination for the success and
predominance of their ideas;
3. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
4. Persons convicted of crime involving moral turpitude;
5. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable
contagious diseases;
6. Persons who, during the period of their residence in the
Philippines have not mingles socially with the Filipinos, or who
have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the
customs, traditions, ideals of the Filipinos;
7. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States
and the Philippines are at war and
8. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the
United States, whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to
become naturalized citizens or subject thereof.
A declaration of intention to become a citizen must first be
filed, unless the applicant is exempted from this requirement
(Secs 5 and 6, Com. Act. 473)
The petition for naturalization must then be filed (sec 8)
After the publication in the Official Gazette or newspaper of
general publication, the petition will be heard (sec 9)
If the petition is approved, there will be a rehearing two years
after the promulgation of the judgment awarding naturalization
(Sec. 1, Rep. Act No. 530)
The taking of the oath of allegiance to support and defend the
Constitution and the laws of the Philippines (Sec 11, Com Act
473, as amended)
Declaration of Intention
One year prior to the filing of his petition for the admission to
Philippine citizenship, the applicant for Philippine citizenship
shall file with the Office of the Solicitor General a declaration
under oath that it is his bona fide intention to become a citizen
of the Philippine (Section 5, Naturalization Law).
The period of one year is intended to give the state a
reasonable time to screen and study the qualifications of the
applicant. However, even if the same is filed one year prior to
the filing of the petition for naturalization, if the filing fee was
paid six months prior to the petition for naturalization, the
declaration produces no effect.
A person may become stateless by any of the following means:
1. He may have been deprived of his citizenship for any cause;
2. He may have renounced his nationality by certain acts,
express or implied;
3. He may have voluntarily asked for a 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.22
Domiciliary theory
- a person’s private rights, conditions, and status, and capacity
are determined by his physical location. In jurisdictions
adhering to domiciliary rule of determining the personal law of
a person, domicile is an important point of contact. Domicile is
one of the test factors in determining the applicable law in
actions involving conflict of laws. While the Philippines follows
the nationality rule with respect to citizen’s status, family rights,
and duties, order of succession and amount of successional
rights, there are certain matters in which our courts apply the
domiciliary rule. They are provided in the following provisions
of law and authorities.
Domicile of origin is received by a person at birth. It is the
domicile of the person’s parents at the time of his birth, which
is not easily lost, and it continues until, upon reaching the age
of majority, he abandons it and acquires a new domicile. This
new domicile is the domicile of choice.
Domicile of choice is also called Voluntary domicile. It is the
place freely chosen by a person sui juris. To acquire a domicile
of choice, there must be of the fact of physical presence in the
new locality and the unqualified intention to make that place
the home of that person.
Constructive domicile is also known as domicile by operation of
law. It is that which the law attributes to a person because of
his disability to make a choice, such as when he is a minor or
suffers from mental of physical disability, in which case he
follows, as a rule, the domicile of his father. It is the domicile
assigned by operation of law to persons legally incapable of
choosing their own domicile. These include minors and infants,
mentally and physically disabled persons, and married women.
The revival of the domicile of origin is known as the Reverter
doctrine
Doctrine of renvoi
- is a doctrine under which the court in resorting to foreign law
adopts rules of foreign law as to conflicts laws, which rules
may in turn refer the court back to the law of the forum.
It is a doctrine whereby a jural matter is presented which the
conflict of laws rules of the forum refer to a foreign law, the
laws rule of which, in turn, refers the matter back to the law of
the forum or a third state. When reference is made back to the
law of the forum, this is known as remission; reference to a
third state is known as transmission

Mutual desistment (Desistance) theory or Mutual

disclaimer of jurisdiction theory
The third way of dealing with the problem of renvoi is
desistment or mutual disclaimer of jurisdiction. The reason for
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.
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 the territory. Hence, the local court
will apply local law.

Foreign court theory

According to this theory, the local court would assume the
same position the foreign court would take were the case
litigated in that foreign country. Thus, if American court applies
American law, Philippine judge should also apply American
law. If the American judge decides the same in accordance
with the Philippine law on succession, the Philippine judge will
do the same and apply Philippine law.
A problem however arises if both courts follow the same
theory. In this case, there would be no end to the case as the
courts would be tossing the law back to each other, for this
reason, some commentators have coined such terms as
“pingpong”, “revolving doors”, “a game of lawn tennis”, “a
logical cabinet of mirrors”, and “circulus inextrabilis” to describe
this theory.