ARELLANO UNIVERISTY SCHOOL OF LAW

CIVIL LAW DEPARTMENT

CONFLICTS OF LAW
Atty. Prime Antonio Ramos

INTRODUCTION
A. Conflict of Laws defined.
B. Elements of Conflict of Laws
C. Importance of Conflict of Laws
D. Distinguish Conflict of Laws from Public International Law

SOURCES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS

A. Article IV; Section 1, Article V, 1987 Constitution
B. Statutory Provisions
1. New Civil Code: Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 829, 1039, 1319 and 1753
2. Family Code of the Philippines: Articles 10, 21, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 80, 96, 184 and 187
3. Revised Penal Code: Article 2
4. Corporation Code of the Philippines: Sections 123, 129 and 133
C. Rules of Court
1. Section 2, Rule 4
2. Section 6, Rule 8
3. Section 2, Rule 11
4. Sections 12, 14, 15 and 16, Rule 14
5. Section 11 and 12, Rule 23
6. Section 48, Rule 39
7. Section 1, Rule 73
8. Section 1, Rule 77
9. Section 1, Rule 92
10. Section 3[n], Rule 131
11. Sections 19[a], 24 and 25, Rule 132

CHOICE OF LAW
A. Foreign Law has no extraterritorial effect; exceptions
B. Characterization and points of contacts or connecting factors
C. Choice of applicable law
D. Agreement by Parties, Not cover by Jurisdiction
E. Where there is no agreement as to applicable law.
F. Applicable foreign law determined by rules of conflict of laws.
G. Illustration of renvoi doctrine
H. Illustration of borrowing statute.
I. Conflict between foreign law and local law; the latter prevails
J. Exceptions to application of foreign law
K. Proof and authentication of foreign laws; of documents
L. Rules on Electronic Evidence
M. Exceptions to non-judicial cognizance of foreign laws.

Jurisprudence
▪ Bienvenido Cadalin vs. Philippine Overseas Employment Agency, G.R. No. 104776, December 5, 1994
▪ Adolfo Aznar vs. Helen Christensen Garcia, G.R. No. L-16749, January 31, 1963
▪ Testate Estate of Amos Bellis, et.al. vs. Edward A. Bellis, G.R. No.L-23678, June 6, 1967
▪ Harald Black Dacasin vs. Sharon del Mundo Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785, February 5, 2010
▪ Norse Management Co. and Pacific Seamen Services vs. National Seamen Board, G.R. No. L-54204, September
30, 1982

CITIZENSHIP AND DOMICILE

A. Citizenship
1. Importance of Nationality and Domicile
2. Citizenship
3. Who are citizen of the Philippines
4. Election of Citizenship
5. Two Kinds of Citizens

Page | 1
 6. Dual Citizenship
7. Loss of Citizenship
8. Re-acquisition and Reacquisition of Filipino citizenship (Republic Act No. 9225)
9. Citizenship by Naturalization
B. Domicile
1. Domicile defined
2. Kinds of Domicile
3. Rules Regarding Domicile
4. Domicile of Wife and Minor Children
5. Domicile and Residence distiguished
6. Domicile and Residence for political Purposes
7. Domicile and Venue

Jurisprudence:
▪ Antonio Bengzon III vs. House of Representative Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001
▪ Mary Grace Natividad Poe-Llamanzares vs. Commission on Election, G.R. No. 221697-221700, March 8, 2016
▪ Ernesto Mercado vs. Eduardo Barrios Manzano and COMELEC, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1996
▪ Casan Macode Maquiling vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013
▪ Rommel Arnado vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015
▪ Juan G. Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 120295 and 123755, June 28, 1996
▪ Mateo Caasi vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88831 and 94508 November 8, 1990
▪ Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 119976 September 18, 1995
▪ Mo Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-21289 October 4, 1971
▪ Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. vs. American Express International, G.R. No. 159507, April 19, 2006;

NATIONALITY AND DOMICILE OF CORPORATIONS

A. Citizenship of Juridical Entity
B. Tests to determine Filipino corporation
C. Domicile of Juridical Person
D. Domicile of Foreign Corporation

OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACT

A. Definition and elements of Contract
B. Law on contract: lex loci contractus
C. Changes in lex loci contractus to most significant relationship
D. Choice of Law by the parties in a contract Exceptions to law chosen by the parties
E. Where there is no agreement as to choice of law
F. Where there is neither agreement nor treaty
G. Place of where contract is entered into or place of performance
H. Air transportation under the Warsaw Convention
I. When liability under Warsaw Convention does not apply
J. Prescription of action under Warsaw Convention
K. Illustrations of liability under a contract.

Jurisprudence
▪ K.K. Shell Sekiyu Osaka Hatsubaisho and Fu Hing Oil Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 90306-07, July 30,
1990
▪ Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs. Hon. Blas F. Ople, G.R. No. 61594 September 28, 1990
▪ Parmanand Shewaram vs. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. L-20099, July 7, 1966
▪ Agustino B. Ong Yiu vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-40597, July 29, 1979
▪ Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70462, August 11, 1988
▪ Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation vs. V.P Eusebio Construction Inc., G.R. No. 140047,
July 13, 2004;
▪ Augusto Benedicto Santos III vs. Northwest Orient Lines, G.R. No. 101538 June 23, 1992

WILLS AND SUCCESSIONS

A. Generally
B. Extrinsic Validity of Wills
C. Probate of Wills
D. Probate of Wills
E. Situs of shares of Stock; power domicliary administrator
F. Law on Successional Rights;Intrinsic Validity

Page | 2
Jurisprudence
▪ Testate Estate of Amos G. Bellis vs. Edward A. Bellis, G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967
▪ Juan Miciano vs. Andre Brimo, G.R. No. L-22595, November 1, 1927
▪ Philippine Trust Co. vs. Magdalena C. Bohanan, G.R. No. L-12105, January 30, 1960
▪ Adolfo Aznar vs. Helen Christensen Garcia, G.R. No. L-16749, January 31, 1963
▪ Severina vda. de Enriquez vs. Miguel Abadia, G.R. No. L-7188 August 9, 1954;

PROPERTY
A. Law of country where property is situated
B. Lex loci rule affecting land in the Philippines
C. Exception to rule prohibiting alien from owning land
D. Conflict of laws in real property situated in another country
E. Illustrative case of lex loci; Laurel VS. Garcia

Jurisprudence
▪ Salvador H. Laurel v. Ramon Garcia, G.R. No. 92013, July 25, 1990
▪ Testate Estate of Amos G. Bellis vs. Edward A. Bellis, supra.
▪ Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Company vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 46720, June 28, 1940
▪ National Development Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49407/L-49469, August 19, 1988;
▪ The Holy See vs. Hon. Eriberto U. Rosario, G.R. No. 101949, December 1, 1994
▪ Karen E. Salvacion vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 94723, August 21, 1997;

TORTS AND DAMAGES

A. Law on damages, generally
B. Law governing torts
C. Traditional rule on determining applicable law
D. Comments on Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd.
E. State of the most significant contacts rule
F. Agreement of the parties as to applicable law.

Jurisprudence
▪ Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119602, October 06, 2000
▪ People of the Philippines vs. Wong Cheng, G.R. No. L-18924, October 19, 1922
▪ Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122191, October 8, 1998

MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE, ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGE AND

LEGAL SEPARATION
A. Marriage and its elements
1. Marriage defined
2. Validity of Marriage
3. Consequences of Marriage
4. Marriage settlement; law governing
5. Foreign marriage has to be authenticated
B. Divorce under Philippine laws
1. Divorce and Annulment of marriage, distinguished
2. Divorce between Filipino spouse is not recognized
3. Divorced legally obtained by foreign spouse is recognized
C. 4.Parental Divorce under Article 20 of Family Code
4. Law Governing divorce
C. Declaration of Nullity of Void Marriage and Annulment of Marriage
1. Nature of and jurisdiction over annulment of marriage
2. Jurisdiction
3. New rule on annulment of marriage
4. Scope of rule; what are void and voidable marriages
5. Prior final judgement of nullity, required only for remarriage
5. Prosecutor required to intervene in proceedings
6. Psychological incapacity as ground for annulment
7. Guidelines under Article 36 of Family Code
8. Other relevant provisions of the Family Code
D. Legal Separation
1. New rule on legal separation
2. Procedure for legal separation

Page | 3
Jurisprudence
▪ Imelda M. Pilapil v. Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989
▪ Republic of the Philippines v. Cipriano Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, 5 October 2005;
▪ Gerbert Corpuz vs. Daisilyn Sto. Tomas, G.R No. 186571, August 11, 2010
▪ Republic of the Philippines vs. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018
▪ Grace J. Garcia-Recio Recio vs. Rederick A. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001;
▪ Pastor B. Tenchavez vs. Vicenta F. Escano, G.R. No. L-19671, November 29, 1965
▪ Alice Reyes Van Dorn vs. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985;

ADOPTION
A. Basic concepts in adoption
1. Adoption defined
2. Local and Foreign Adoption
3. Foreign Adoption is valid in our country
4. Law that determine jurisdiction
5. Nature of adoption proceedings
6. Laws on adoption ; how construed
7. Effects or consequences of adoption

B. Domestic Adoption
1. Who may adopt?
2. Who may be adopted?
3. Who may not be adopted under the Family Code?
4. Provisions Of RA 8552 on eligibility to adopt?
5. Inter-country adoption of Filipino children

TRADEMARKS, PATENTS AND COPYRIGHT

A. Introduction
1. Philippine membership in Paris Convention
2. Importance of Trademarks and Tradenames
3. How Ownership acquired
4. Mark or tradename belongs to prior user
5. Importance of registration
6. Legal basis of Rights of Foreign Nationals
7. Rights of Foreign Nationals Pertaining to Trademarks generally
8. Reciprocity rights
9. Rights under the Paris Convention
10. Right to Register Trademarks
11. Right of Priority
12. When application may be refused
13. Registration is independent of others
14. Territoriality
15. Right to assign trademark
16. Right to protect tradenames
17. Right to protect collective marks
18. Right to protect service marks
19. Sources of Rights and Legal Remedies
20. Legal requirements for Maintaining suits
21. Legal Remedies of foreign nationals
22. Infringement of trademark, defined
23. Infringement and Unfair Competition distinguished
24. Illustrative Case
25. Infringement of trade name
26. Infringement of name and mark of ownership stamped on containers
27. Unfair competition, generally,
28. Goodwill is what the law protects against unfair competition
29. Diversion of trade and loss of sales
30. Sale not indispensable element
31. Protection of well-known trademarks

B. Patents
1. Rights of Foreigner with respect to patents
2. Compulsory Licensing

Page | 4
C. Copyrights
1. Defined
2. Term of Protection
3. Remedy for Infringement
4. Berne Convention
5. Reciprocity and International Conventions

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
A. Foreign Corporation defined
B. Classification of Foreign Corporation
C. Application for a License
D. Purpose of License
E. Applicable law in internal affairs and intra-corporate disputes
F. Jurisdiction over internal matters
G. Merger on consolidation of foreign corporation
H. Doing business without a license
I. what constitute “doing business”
J. Illustration of “doing business”
K. Single –act-transaction rule; not constituting “doing business”
L. When single act constitute doing business
M. Unlicensed Corporation cannot sue: Exceptions
N. Effect of lack of license on Contracts
O. Securing license cures defect and entitles it to sue
P. Unlicensed corporation doing business can be sued
Q. Foreign corporation raising counterclaims
R. Unlicensed corporation not doing business can sue and be sued
S. Right to protect corporate name of foreign corporation
T. Pleading and practice, requirements for suing

Jurisprudence
▪ The Mentholatum Co., Inc., et al. vs. Anacleto Mangliman, et al., G.R. No. L-47701, June 27, 1941
▪ Hathibai Bulakhidas vs. The Honorable Pedro Navarro and Diamond Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 49695, April
7, 1986
▪ Puma Sportschuhfabriken Rudolf Dassler KG vs. The Intermediate Appellate Court and Mil-Oro Manufacturing
Corporation, G.R. No. 75067, February 26, 1988
▪ La Chemise Lacoste SA vs. Hon. Oscar Fernandez and Gobindram Hemadas, G.R. No. L-63796-97, May 2, 1984
▪ Far East International Import and Export Corporation vs. Nankai Kogyo, G.R. No. L-13525, November 30, 1962

JUDICIAL, JURISDICTION, FORUM NON-CONVENIENCE, VENUE AND SUMMONS

A. Judicial Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction, generally
2. Jurisdiction over action under Warsaw Convention
3. Assumption of jurisdiction, generally
4. Action in rem and quasi in rem, where dependant is non-resident
B. Forum Non Convenience
1. Defined
2. Discretion of trial court
3. Illustrative Case
C. Venue
1. Libel Suits
2. Venue of action against non-residents
3. Choice of forum to file action
D. Summons
1. Summons defined
2. Service of Summons required ,due process
3. How service of summons effected
4. Personal service of summons to personal actions
5. Substituted Service
6. Service upon residents temporarily abroad.
7. Service upon prisoners, minors or incompetents
8. Service upon unknown dependants
9. Extraterritorial service , when resorted to and how effected
10. Summons in action for annulment of marriage
11. Where action in rem becomes in personam

Page | 5
 12. Service by leave of court
13. Service upon non-juridical entity
14. Service upon domestic private entities or corporations
15. Service upon persons other than any of those enumerated invalid
16. Service upon foreign entities or corporations, generally
17. Foreign corporation licensed to do business
18. Summon is procedural matter governed by law of the forum
19. Foreign corporations doing business without license
20. Agent upon whom service of summons may be made
21. Foreign corporation not licensed and not doing business
22. Service upon public corporations
23. Proof of service
24. Proof of service by publication
25. Voluntary Appearance

Jurisprudence
▪ Raytheon International, Inc. vs. Rouzie, G.R. No. 162894, February 26, 2008;
▪ The Manila Hotel Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 120077, October 13, 2000;
▪ Kazuhiro Hasegawa and Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd. v. Kitamura, supra.;
▪ K.K. Shell Sekiyu Osaka Hatsubaisho and Fu Hing Oil Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 90306-07, July 30,
1990;

RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGEMENT

A. Generally
B. Reasons for recognition of foreign judgments
C. Theories on recognition of foreign judgment distinguished
D. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments distinguished
E. Recognition of foreign judgment; res judicata as a bar
F. Is foreign judgment res judicata?
G. Judgments not res judicata without opportunity to repel it
H. Effects of foreign judgment generally
I. Requirement for giving effect to foreign judgment
J. Grounds to repel foreign judgment, generally
K. Where foreign judgment is vitiated by fraud
L. Where there is collusion
M. Where foreign judgment is clear
N. Mistake of law or fact
O. Illustrations of foreign judgment which are clearly erroneous
P. Foreign judgment to conform with constitutional requirements

Jurisprudence
▪ Minoru Fujiki vs. Maria Paz Gelela Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013
▪ Wolfgang Roehr vs. Maria Carmen Rodriguez and Hon. Josefina Guevarra-Salonga, G.R. No. 142820, June 20,
2003
▪ St. Aviation Services vs. Grand International Airways, G.R. No. 140288, October 23, 2006

REGULAR SEMESTER
CLASS STANDING: 20%
MIDTERMS: 35%
FINALS: 45%

SUMMER CLASS
CLASS STANDING: 30%
FINALS: 70%

Page | 6
PROJECT:

Instructions:
1. The project will be submitted on the last meeting of the class. No extensions will be allowed;

2. Each student will be required to digest the cases in the outline

3. The project shall be done in your own handwriting on a white legal-size bond paper (8.5 x 13), observing
the following margins: (a) Top Margin: 1.2 in. (b) Bottom Margin: 1 in. (c) Left Margin: 1.5 in. and (d) Right
Margin 1 in.;

4. Each page, except for the first page, the certification page and table of contents, must contain a page
number to be written at the lower right corner;

5. You may only use either black, blue or blue black signpens;

6. In compiling your project, it must be ring-bound with a clear front and back cover.

7. The first page should have the following information:

Lower right page:

a. Full name, with the surname indicated first;
b. Section and student number;
c. Name of your instructor;

Top middle page in the following order:

a. Arellano University School of Law
b. Juris Doctor

Middle page:
a. Conflict of Laws

8. The second page should have a certification signed by two (2) of your classmates with the following
statements:

“We hereby certify that the contents of this project are in

accordance with the instructions given. We further certify that we
have read the contents of this project and the same is complete and
an original work of the author.

“We also understand that any violations of the rules prescribed in

the project will automatically penalize the Undersigned with a
deduction of two (2) points per violation.

__________________ ____________________

9. The third page should contain the Table of Contents. The Table of Contents should only contain the Titles
and the Chapters of the digest and their page numbers.

10. This project is mandatory and is equivalent to ten (10) percent of your Class Standing. Failure to submit will
result in the automatic grade of 65 in project.

11. Any violations on the instructions of the project will cause the deduction of two (2) points per violation.

12. All other formats, designs or concepts not mentioned in the instruction will beupon the discretion of the
project maker.

Page | 7