conflict reviwer 2.docx

8/10/2019 conflict reviwer 2.docx

1/8


2/8

evidence. We also hold that when one of the statutory epatriating acts is

proved* it is constitutional to presume it to have been a voluntary act until

and unless proved otherwise by the actor. 1f succeeds* there can be no

epatriation. 1f he fails* the +uestion remains whether on all the evidence

the actual residence. ,hus* when a woman marries and

follows the domicile of the husband* she 2eeps her domicile of origin andmerely gains a new home.

- ,he term >residence* for the purpose of meeting the +ualification for an

elective position* means >domicile or the individual3s permanent home* a

place to which* whenever absent for business or for pleasure* one intends to

return* and depends on facts and circumstance in the sense that they disclose

intent. 1t includes the twin elements.

CAASI vs. CA

- @erito @iguel3s application for immigrant status and permanent residence

in the %4 and his possession of a green card attesting to such status are

conclusive proof that he is a permanent resident of the %4 despite hisoccasional visit to the Philippines. /ence* he is dis+ualified from running an

elective position.

MACALINTAL vs. COMELEC

- ,he 4upreme Court stated that the affidavits which a ilipino permanent

residents in a foreign country is re+uired to eecute if he desires to register

as an absentee voter is to give him the chance to manifest whether to

maintain his domicile in the Philippines or to abandon it* when the Court

declared 4ec. 9AdB of 6epublic 5ct No. '&7'* or otherwise 2nown as the

0verseas 5bsentee oting 5ct of 8##)* as constitutional. ,he ruling has

clarified domicile* insofar as permanent resident citizens are concerned.

NICOLAS-LEWIS vs. COMELEC

- ,here is no provision in the dual citizenship lawD65 '889Dre+uiring

>duals to actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines

first before they van eercise the right to voteDon the contrary* 65 '889* in

implicit ac2nowledgement that >dual are most li2ely non-resident* grants

an absentee voter law under 65 '889.

- Considering the unison intent of the Constitution and 65 '&7' and the

epansion of the scope of that law with the passage of 65 '889* the

irresistible conclusion is that >duals may now eercise the right of

suffrage thru the absentee voting scheme and as overseas absentee voters.

JAO vs. CA

- or purpose of venue in estate proceedings* residence and domicile are

different. =omicile refers to the fied* permanent residence to which* when

absent* one has the intention of returning* while venue in estate proceedings

is the place where the settlement of estate is filed and corresponds to

>residence in the contet of venue provisions* which is nothing more thana person3s actual residence or place or abode* where he resides therein with

continuity and consistency. ,he word >reside in the place where the

settlement of estate should be filed does not refer to legal residence or

domicile but to the personal* actual or physical habitation of a person* actual

residence or place of abode.

- 6ecitals death certificate as to the residence of the decedent at the time of

death are admissible in evidence and presumed to be correct.

V. NATIONALITY AND DOMICILE

CRISOSTOMO vs. SEC

- Where a ilipino wife or a ilipino husband and herEhis foreign spouse

owns shares of stoc2 in a partly nationalized business enterprise* those

shares in the name of the ilipino spouse may be counted as part of the

ilipino ownership.

- )#$ is only owned by the !apanese group while 98$ is owned by Fdita* a

ilipino citizen. /ence (#$ capital stoc2s of %=@C is owned by ilipino

citizens.

- Fnatsu and others did not violate constitutional prohibition since they didnot practice medicine in the Philippines but they only own shares of stoc2 in

the Philippines. 0wnership of stoc2s in the Philippine /ospital by alien

doctors does not constitute illegal engaging in the practice of medicine.

2 | P a g e


3/8

CLAVECILLA RADIO SYSTEM vs. ANTILLON

- 1t is a well-settled that the domicile of a corporation is the place where itsprincipal of business or principal office is established. ,he articles of

incorporation indicate its principal of business or office* and it is where its

residence is. ,he fact that it maintains branch offices in some parts of the

country does not mean that it has residence in said places because a

corporation can have only one residence at a time* which is the place of its

principal office as indicated in its articles of incorporation filed with the

4ecurities and Fchange Commission.

- ,he principal place of business or office of a corporation is its residence forpurposes of venue of suit or action. ,he residence of its president is not the

residence of the corporation because a corporation has a personality

separate and distinct from that if its officers and stoc2holders.8Nor is its

branch office in a place other than its principal place of business. /ence*

there is improper venue where the suit against a corporation is filed in the

residence of its officer or in the place of its branch office* unless such

residence or branch office is also the principal place of business of the

corporation.

NORTHWEST vs. CA

- ,he domicile of a corporation is in the state where it is incorporated.

Nonetheless* a corporation formed in one state may* for certain purposes* be

regarded as a resident in another state in which it has offices and transacts

business.

- ,hus* while a foreign corporation is domiciled in the state of its

incorporation* it may also be considered a resident in the Philippines* where

it does business. What effectively ma2es such a foreign corporation a

resident corporation in the Philippines is its actually being in the Philippines

and licitly doing business in the country.

- oreign corporations duly licensed in the Philippines are considered

>residents of the Philippines.

- 4harp* in the light of =octrine of Processual Presumption may be deemed aresident of !apan and as such was amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts

therein and may be deemed to have assented to the said courts3 lawful

methods of serving process.

- 5ccordingly* the etraterritorial service of summons on it by the !apanese

Court was valid not under the processual presumption but also because of

the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty.

STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE vs. CITIBANK

2 Sy vs. Tyson enterprises, Inc.

- ,here is no +uestion that the three ban2s are foreign corporation in this

case* with principal offices situated outside the Philippines. ,here is no

+uestion either that said ban2s have been licensed to do business in this

country and have in fact been doing business here for many years* through

branch offices or agencies* including >foreign currency deposit unitsG in

fact* one of them* /4C has been doing business in the Philippines since as

early as &7(9.

- 5 corporation may be domiciled in one state of its creation and resident in

anotherG its legal domicile in the state of its creation presents no impedimentto its residence in a real and practical sense in the state of its business

activities.

GAMBOA vs. TEVES

- ,hus* the "#$ of the >capital assumes* or should result in* >controlling

interest in the corporation. 6einforcing this interpretation of the term

>capital* as referring to controlling interest or shares entitled to vote* is the

definition of a >Philippine national in the oreign 1nvestment 5ct of &''&.

- - under the said 15* the term >Philippine National shall mean a citizen of

the PhilippinesG or a domestic corporation or association wholly owned by

citizens of the PhilippinesG or a !"#!"a$%!& !"'a&%(e) *&)e" $+e ,as !

$+e P+%,%##%&es ! +%+ a$ ,eas$ /01 ! $+e a#%$a, s$!2 !*$s$a&)%&'a&) e&$%$,e) $! v!$e %s !&e) a&) +e,) 34 %$%(e&s ! $+e P+%,%##%&es.

VI. CONTRACT

TOLENTINO vs. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

- Not only are eisting laws read into contracts in order to fi obligations as

between parties* but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign

power is also read into contracts as a basic postulate of the legal order.

BAGONG FILIPINAS vs. NLRC

- ,he issue is whether the amount of the death compensation of a ilipino

seaman should be determined under the shipboard employment contract

eecuted in the Philippines or the /ong2ong law. /olding that the

shipboard employment contract was controlling* the court differentiated

said case from Norse @anagement Co. in that in the latter case there was an

epress stipulation in the employment contract that the foreign law would

be applicable if it afforded greater compensation. ,here was no such

agreement in agong ilipinas 0verseas vs. N;6C.

- When there is no agreement as to choice of law* in case of breach* the courts

of the forum apply the different rules determinative of the applicable law.

3 | P a g e


4/8

0ne of such rules is the application of the law where the contract was

eecuted* or the lex loci celebrationis.

N!$e5 Ge&e"a, R*,e5,ransactions to be done or services to be performed* which are

reduced in writing or agreement* the parties may stipulate that any disputes or

differences arising from the agreement be governed by the laws of a particular

country and subject eclusively to the jurisdiction of another country. ,his is 2nown

as the choice-of-law and forum clause and may bar a party* in case of dispute* from

filing a suit in the country other than as stipulated in the agreement.

E6e#$%!&s $! ,a +!se& 34 $+e #a"$%es5

&. Where the foreign law chosen is contrary to peremptory provisions dealing

with matters impressed with public interest* the chosen law cannot be

applied. or the parties may not contract away applicable provisions dealing

with matters heavily impressed with public interest.

8. Where the relationship of the contracting parties affects public interest in

the country of one of the parties* or the substantial contacts arising

therefrom point to the law of another country as applicable law* such will be

applied* notwithstanding the fact that the parties have agreed that a specific

foreign law as the applicable law as illustrated in Pa2%s$a& %&$e"&a$%!&a,

A%",%&es C!"#. vs. O#,e

PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORP. VS. OPLE

- ,he argument that the labor laws of 4audi 5rabia should have primacy overPhilippine laws was rejected. ,he court ruled that Philippine laws and

regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties agreeing on some

other laws to govern their relationship.

TRIPLE EIGHT INTEGRATED SERVICES vs. NLRC

- ,he employment contract was perfected in the Philippines but the place ofperformance was in 4audi 5rabia. With respect to employer3s claim that the

law of 4audi 5rabia should apply* which re+uired no medical certificate

before an employee could be dismissed on the ground of illness* because it

is the place of performance of the contract* the Court rejected such claim

and instead applied the rule of lex loci contractus, which was perfected in

the Philippines.

- irst* established is the rule that lex loci contractus governs in thisjurisdiction. 4ettled is the rule that the courts of the forum will not enforce

any foreign claim obnoious to the forum3s public policy. ,he Constitution

guarantees the special protection of wor2ers.

US Case5 ERIE INSURANCE vs. HEFFERNAN

VII. WILLS AND SUCCESSIONS

TAYAG vs. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED

- Where a non-resident decedent dies in the country of his domicile** leaving

properties not only in his place of domicile but also in the Philippines* his

estate is settled in both countries* with respect to the properties respectively

situated* by the appointment of an administrator in the decedent3s last

domicile called principal or domiciliary administrator* and by the

appointment in the Philippines of an administrator called ancillaryadministrator. ,he reason being that the grant of administration in the

decedent3s domicile does not ex proprio vigorehave any effect beyond the

limits of the country in which it is granted. /ence* the principal or the

domiciliary administrator has no authority in the Philippines.

- ,he domiciliary administrator cannot frustrate the settlement of the estate

situated in the Philippines by disregarding the court3s order on the matter*

without the court being justified in the use of the remedies as an appropriate

response to such refusal* otherwise the court if the forum will be held

hostage in the discharge of its judicial functions by the illegal acts of the

domiciliary administrator who* because he is non-resident* cannot be

reached by the coercive power of the court.

TESTATE ESTATE OF BOHANON vs. BOHANON

- Whether the testamentary dispositions especially those of the children

which are short of their legitime given them by the Civil Code of the

Philippines* are valid.

- 1t is not disputed that the laws of Nevada allow a testator to dispose all of

his properties by will. 1n accordance with the Civil Code* the validity of the

testamentary disposition shall be governed by the national law of the

testator and as it has been decided and it is not disputed that the national law

of the testator is that of the 4tate of Nevada which allows the testator to

dispose all of his property according to his will.

MICIANO vs. BRIMO

- 5 foreign decedent who made his will in the Philippines stated that his

property be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not that of his

country. 0ur court ruled that the disposition of property in his will should be

made in accordance with his national law and that the provisions of the will

is invalid as it is against 5rticle &" of the Civil Code.

VII . PROPERTY

4 | P a g e


5/8

,he sale of a private land in violation of 4ection ( of 5rticle H11 is null and void.

,he seller and the buyer are in pari delicto, which would mean that the parties would

be left where they are*) subject to eceptions.:/owever* where the buyer* an alien

subse+uently sold the land to a ilipino citizen 9or the buyer has in the meanwhile

ac+uired ilipino citizenship by naturalization* the restriction no longer applies."

CHEESMAN vs. IAC

- When an alien husband and a ilipino wife buys a land in the latter3s name*

the land does not become conjugal property and the sale or disposition ofsuch land does need the consent of the alien husband.

LLANTINO vs. CO LING CHANGE

- ,he constitutional prohibition does not apply to a lease in favor of a

foreigner of real property for a reasonable period. 1f the period of lease is

unreasonable* say 9# 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.

- 5liens are not completely ecluded by the Constitution form use of lands

for residential purpose. 4ince their residence in the Philippines is temporary*

they may be granted temporary rights such as lease contract which is notforbidden by the Constitution.

HOLY SEE vs. ROSARIO

- ,he decision to transfer the property and the subse+uent disposal are

li2ewise clothed with a governmental character. Petitioner did not sell ;ot

9-5 for profit or gain. 1t merely wanted to dispose off the same because the

s+uatters living thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for

the purpose of the donation.

- ,here are two conflicts of sovereign immunityI

3 Rellosa vs. a! "#ee $un

4 P#il. Ban%ing "orl. &s. 'ui S#e

( Sarsosa &)a. *e Barsobia vs. "uenco

+ &asue vs. iap

Classical or absolute theory* a sovereign cannot without its consents* be

made a respondent in the courts of another soverign.

Newer or restrictive theory* the mJimunity of the sovereign is

recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state*

but not with regard to private acts orjure gestionis.

,he restrictive theory came about because of the entry of sovereign state

into purely commercial activities remotely connected with the discharge of

governmental functions. or amples* refer to the full tet.

LAUREL vs. GARCIA

- Lex loci or lex loci rei sitae with respect to real property means that the law

of the place where the property is situated governs. Pursuant to this rule* in

all actions relating to recovery of land* the rule is that the action is governed

by the law of the place where the land is located.

US Cases5

DOE vs. HOLY SEE

- =oe has not alleged that the /oly 4ee created corporation for the purpose ofevading liability for its own wrongs. =oe also has not alleged that /oly 4ee

has day-to-day involvement with the 5rchdiocese. /iring* supervision and

training of employees are discretionary acts.

UNC LEAR SERVICES vs. KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

- ,he Kingdom3s contention that the ,4P contract does not fall within thecommercial activity eception is correct. Fmployees under the ,4P contract

performed their wor2 in 4audi 5rabia and were integrated with 645.

4ome of these employees provided flight operations services and training to

the 645. /ence* it may be considered as a sovereign act.

- With respect to the 4P5the same

powers that a private citizen might eercise. /ere* the Kingdom entered

the mar2et place to obtain repair services for parts and components for its -

9 aircraft.

I7. TORTS AND DAMAGES

- ,he traditional rule of conflict of laws is that the law of country wherephysical injury or death of a person occurred governs the liability of the

person responsible thereof or of the employer of the injured or deceased

( | P a g e


6/8

person* as well as the amount of compensation which the injured or the

injured would be entitled.

- ,he law of the flag usually supersedes the lex loci delicti test of tortjurisdiction. /owever* the law of the flag is not* however* controlling and

will not be applied where consideration against its application outweigh

those in favor* as where the wrongful act or omission caused injury to the

country3s citizen or where the local law is designed to protect seamen in

Philippine ports.

WILDVALLEY vs. CA

- 1t is well-settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in ourjurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to ta2e judicial notice of them.

,hey must be alleged and proved.

- =istinction must be made between written and unwritten law. ,he formerfalls under 4ec. 8:* 6ule &)8 of the 6oC wherein it provides that in order

for a foreign public document to be admissible* the following re+uisites are

mandatoryI A&B it must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the

records or by his deputyG and A8B it must be accompanied by a certificate by

a secretary of the embassy or legation* consul or vice consul....and with the

seal of his office.

- Nevertheless* the court noted that the written laws were not proven in themanner provided by 4ec. 8: of 6ule &)8 of the 6oC. 0nly a photocopy of

the 6eglamento a veritable playpen for judicial policyma2ers.

5s the C5 of New Lor2 noted* >we should not depart from sound precedent

simply for the sa2e of change or merely because other courts have arrived at

a result different from that which we have espoused.

- ,he rule of le loci delicti remains the law of


7/8

- @ichigan residents are not subject to 1llinois3 constitutional protection andtherefore* 1llinois would have little or no interest in protecting plaintiffs

from caps on non-economic damages.

- Considering the interest of @ichigan and 1llinois* and of the field of tortlaw* we are unable to conclude that 1llinois3 relationship to this case is so

pivotal as to overcome the presumption that @ichigan* as the state where

the injury occurred* is the state with the most significant relationship.

JONES vs. SKELLEY

- While the defendant argues that North Carolina does not have subjectmatter jurisdiction because at the time the !une 8##: intercourse occurred*

neither the parties nor @r. !ones were residents of North Carolina and

because North Carolina >has no interest in the eclusive right of seual

relationship between 4outh Carolina residents* we note that >in actions

arising in tort* North Carolina employs the doctrine of lex loci delicti which

provides that the law of the state where the tort was allegedly committed

controls the substantive issues of the case.

HOFFMAN vs. PARADE PUBLICATIONS

- ,he obvious intent of the 4tate of /uman 6ights ;aw is to protect>inhabitant and persons >within the 4tate* meaning that those who wor2

in New Lor2 fall within the class of persons who may bring discrimination

claims in New Lor2. ,herefore* we conclude that a non-resident must plead

and prove that the alleged discrimination conduct had an impact in new

Lor2.

KAMELGARD vs. MACURA

- ,he plaintiffs argument that he is injured whenever someone reads or hearsabout the complaint to the 5merican College of 4urgeons could* if thought

as a basis for resolving choice of law issue* lead to ridiculous forum-

shopping. 1f a bariatic surgeon in 1celand read a newspaper article about thecomplaint against the plaintiff* could the plaintiff as the 1llinois court to

apply 1celandic ;aw. ,he plaintiff has no reputation in 1celand to be

damaged by an 1celander who reads about in an 1celandic newspaper* so

unless he where planning to move to that country he wouldn3t suffer any

injury for which defamation law would provide a remedy.

- 5nd it is where* according to ;earned /and* he feels the sting ofdefamation.

7. ADOPTION

RAMIREZ MERCIDA vs. AGLUBAY

- 5n adoption created under the law of a foreign country is entitled to

registration in the corresponding civil register of the Philippines. 1t is to be

understood* however* that the effects of such adoption shall be governed by

the laws of this country.

- When an alien has a right to reenter the Philippines* under our immigration

laws* and the latter has validly adopted a person in his country* the adopted

has the right to enter the territory of the Philippines as the adopted son.(

REPUBLIC vs. MILLER

- ,he court has ruled that an +ualified to adopt under the Child and Louthwelfare Code* which was in force at the time of the filing of the petition*

ac+uired a vested right which could not be affected by the subse+uent

enactment of a new law dis+ualifying him

- Conse+uently* the enactment of the amily Code* effective 5ugust )* &'77*will not impair the right of respondents who are aliens to adopt a ilipino

child because the right has become vested at the time of filing of the

petition for adoption and shall be governed by the law then in force.

ELLIS vs. REPUBLIC

- ,he Civil Code adheres to the theory that jurisdiction over the status of anatural person is determined by the latter3s nationality. Pursuant to this

theory* we have jurisdiction over the status of aby 6ose* she being a

citizen of the Philippines* but not over the status of the petitioners* who are

foreigners

- 1nasmuch as petitioners are not domiciled in the Philippines* and hence*non-resident aliens* we cannot assume and eercise jurisdiction over their

status* under either the nationality theory or the domiciliary theory. 1n any

event* whether the above-+uoted provision of said 5rt. ))9 is predicated

upon lac2 of jurisdiction over the res* or merely affects the cause of action*

we have no authority to grant the relief prayed for by petitioners.

7I. DIVORCE8 NULLITY8 ANNULMENT8 LEGAL SEOARATION

TENCHAVEZ vs. ESCANO

- 1t has been held that where ilipina wife married to a ilipino husband wentabroad and secured a divorce in the %nited 4tates and thereafter married an

5merican citizen* which is not recognized in the Philippines* the ilipino

husband is entitled to file an action for legal separation on the ground of

adultery on the part of his ilipina wife. 1n the eyes of the Philippine law*

/g $ian vs. "ollector o0 "ustos

| P a g e


8/8

,enchavez and Fscano are still married. ,hus* the desertion and securing of

an invalid divorce decree by one spouse entitled the other for damages.

N!$e)5 While divorce is not recognized in the Philippines* the validly divorce

obtained by a foreigner in his country or in a country which grants divorce* who

married to a ilipino citizen is recognized insofar as the foreigner is concerned.

VAN DORN vs. ROMILLO

- 6ichard %pton* a %4 citizen* married to a Philippine citizen* secured adivorce in the %nited 4tates against his wife. /e thereafter filed a complaint

for accounting* alleging that his wife3s business was conjugal and he was

entitled to manage it. ,he respondent filed a motion to dismiss* as %pton3s

complaint was barred by the divorce decree he obtained in the %4

- ,he respondent %pton* having secured the divorce* was no longer the

husband of the petitioner and had no legal personality to file the action

against his wife.

PILAPIL vs. IBAY-SOMERA

- the court reiterated the ruling in an =orn. 1n Pilapil* a ilipino and a

conflict reviwer 2.docx

Documents