Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Lex Loci Celebrationis

Submitted to: Atty. Paul Rainer Yebra

Submitted By: Eric Jiro Acuna III Karl Umerez Dan Patrick Yang

Definition:
The lex loci celebrationis relates to the law of the place of the ceremony or the law of the place where a contract is made. 1 It is the Law of the place where the contract was executed and is the basis for determining the law applicable. Under the first paragraph of Article 17, the forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed under the principle of lex loci celebrationis.2 Thus, if in Japan, for example, it is required that for a will to be valid the date thereof need not be in the handwriting of the testator, then such a will is valid even if under Philippine laws the contents of a will, including the date, must all be in the handwriting of the testator.3 With the exception on Art.26 par. 1 of the Family Code which states all marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, 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 Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38 4 Thus marriages without a license solemnized abroad, and proxy marriages abroad shall be valid in the Philippines if such marriages are valid in accordance with laws in force in the country were they are solemnized. 5

Landmark Case:
1 2 3 4 5

GR No. 149177, Hasegawa v. Kitamura, November 23, 2007 The Law on Persons and Family relations Rabuya Persons and Family Relations law Sta. Maria The Law on Persons and Family relations Rabuya Persons and Family Relations Sta. Maria

Insular Government vs. Frank 13 Phil 236 G.R.No.2935. March 23, 1909. FACTS: In 1903 in the state of Illinois, Mr. Frank, a US citizen and a representative of the Insular Government of the Philippines entered into a contract whereby the former shall serve as stenographer in the Philippines for a period of 2 years. The contract contained a provision that in case of violation of its terms, Mr. Frank shall be liable for the amount incurred by the Philippine Government for his travel from Chicago to Manila and one-half salary paid during such period. After serving for 6 months, defendant left the service and refused to make further compliance with the terms of the contract, therefore the Government sued him to recover the amount of $269.23 plus damages. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, hence the defendant appealed presenting minority as his special defense. By reason of the fact that under the laws of the Philippines, contracts made by persons who did not reach majority age of 23 are unenforceable. Defendant claims that he is an adult when he left Chicago but was a minor when he arrived in Manila and at the time the plaintiff attempted to enforce the contract. ISSUE: Whether or not the contract is valid. RULING: Mr. Frank being fully qualified to enter into a contract at the place and time the contract was made, he cannot therefore plead infancy as a defense at the place where the contract is being enforced. Although Mr. Frank was still a minor under Philippine laws, he was nevertheless considered an adult under the laws of the state of Illinois, the place where the contract was made. No rule is better settled in law than that matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation and validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place where the contract is made. Matters connected to its performance are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of its performance. Matters respecting a remedy, such as bringing of a suit, admissibility of evidence, and statutes of limitations, depend upon the law of the place where the suit is brought.

Latest Jurisprudence:

Hasegawa v. Kitamura GR No. 149177, November 23, 2007 FACTS: On March 30, 1999, petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. (Nippon) entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent Minoru Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently residing in the Philippines. The agreement provides that respondent was to extend professional services to Nippon for a year starting on April 1, 1999. Nippon then assigned respondent to work as the project manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road (STAR) Project in the Philippines, following the company's consultancy contract with the Philippine Government. When the STAR Project was near completion, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engaged the consultancy services of Nippon, on January 28, 2000, this time for the detailed engineering and construction supervision of the Bongabon-Baler Road Improvement (BBRI) Project. Kitamura was named as the project manager. On February 28, 2000, petitioner Kazuhiro Hasegawa, Nippon's general manager for its International Division, informed respondent that the company had no more intention of automatically renewing his ICA. His services would be engaged by the company only up to the substantial completion of the STAR Project on March 31, 2000, just in time for the ICA's expiry. Threatened with impending unemployment, Kitamura, through his lawyer, requested a negotiation conference and demanded that he be assigned to the BBRI project. Nippon insisted that respondents contract was for a fixed term that had already expired, and refused to negotiate for the renewal of the ICA.As he was not able to generate a positive response, Kitamura initiated on June 1, 2000 Civil Case No. 000264 for specific performance and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City. For their part, petitioners, contending that the ICA had been perfected in Japan and executed by and between Japanese nationals, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. They asserted that the claim for improper pre-termination of respondent's ICA could only be heard and ventilated in the proper courts of Japan following the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus.

In the meantime, on June 20, 2000, the DPWH approved Nippon's request for the replacement of Kitamura by a certain Y. Kotake as project manager of the BBRI Project. On June 29, 2000, the RTC, on the ground that matters connected with the performance of contracts are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance. Aggrieved by this development, petitioners filed with the CA, on September 19, 2000. The CA declared that the trial court was correct in applying instead the principle of lex loci solutionis. ISSUE: Whether the subject matter jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil cases for specific performance and damages involving contracts executed outside the country by foreign nationals may be assailed on the principles of lex loci celebrationis. RULING: No. For a court to validly exercise its power to adjudicate a controversy, it must have jurisdiction over the plaintiff or the petitioner, over the defendant or the respondent, over the subject matter, over the issues of the case and, in cases involving property, over the res or the thing which is the subject of the litigation.. The Court finds the invocation of these grounds unsound. Lex loci celebrationis relates to the "law of the place of the ceremony" or the law of the place where a contract is made. In a case involving a contract, the court should consider where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the parties.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai