Republic of the Philippines

TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION
2/F Dean’s Office, Tarlac State University Gym
G. Romulo Boulevard, Tarlac City 2300
www.tsulaw.edu.ph/email address: [email protected]

SYLLABUS
in
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
(Or Conflict of Laws)

by:

ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II, L.M.

S/Y 2016-2017
(First Semester)

I. Private International Law’ Defined

II. Importance of the Subject

III. Scope and Functions

1. question of jurisdiction

2. question of foreign law

3. question of foreign judgment

IV. Private’ and ‘Public International Law’ Distinguished

1. Monist school

2. Dualist school

V. Sources of Private International Law

1. Indirect sources

a. the natural moral law

b. the works of writers

2. Direct sources

a. constitutions

b. codifications (like Arts. 15, 16, 17, 66, 71, 99, and 124 of the
Civil Code)

c. special laws
 2

d. treaties and conventions (like the Codigo Bustamante which

stresses the nationality principle, and the Treaties of
Montevideo, which stress the domiciliary principle)

e. judicial decisions

f. international customs (like lex situs and lex loci celebrationis)

VI. Alternatives Given to the Court

A. Doctrine of Forum ‘Non-Conveniens’ Explained

Case:

Bank of America NT&SA vs. Court of Appeals, 400 SCRA 156 (2003)

1. The doctrine of forum non-conveniens

2. Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of

the doctrine of forum non-conveniens

3. Mere mention of civil cases having been filed in foreign

jurisdiction without — showing the identity of rights asserted and
the reliefs sought for as well as the presence of the elements of res
judicata should one of the cases be adjudged

B. Reasons for Forum Non-Conveniens

VII. Res Judicata’

Cases:

Philippine Nails & Wires Corp. v. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc.,

397 SCRA 431 (2003)

Young v. Keng Seng, 398 SCRA 629 (2003)

Four (4) Essential Conditions to Concur Res Judicata

Philosophy Behind the Rule on Res Judicata

Cases:

State Investment Trust, Inc. v. Delta Motors Corp., 400 SCRA 509
(2003)

Dela Rama v. Mendiola, 401 SCRA 704 (2003)

Lucente v. Evangelista, Jr., 396 SCRA 627 (2003)

Fernandez v. Esidto, 395 SCRA 1 (2003)

 3

VIII. Application of the Internal or Domestic Law

Three (3) Instances when the Forum has to Apply the Internal or
Domestic Law (lex fori) in Adjudicating a Conflicts Problem Set Before It

Read:

Art. 17, par. 3, and Art. 16, par. 1, Civil Code of the Philippines

Minor, Conflict of Laws, pp. 9-26 and Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, pp.
21-24, 30

Cases:

Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated, Inc., 26 SCRA 242 (1968)

Leon and Ghezzi v. Manufacturer’s Life Ins. Co., 90 Phil. 459 (1951)

Van Dorn v. Judge Romillo, Jr., 139 SCRA 139 (1985)

IX. Rules Regarding Penalties in Divorce

X. Theories on Why the Foreign Law May in Some Cases Be Given Effect

1. The Theory of Comity

2. The Theory of Vested Rights

3. The Theory of Local Law

4. The Theory of Harmony of Laws

5. The Theory of Justice

XI. The Definition of ‘Comity’

Two (2) Kinds of Comity

a. comity based on reciprocity

b. comity based on pervasiveness of a foreign judgment

Cases:

Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113

Johnston v. Companie Generale Transatlantique, 242 N.Y. 381, U.S.

Court of Appeals

XII. Recognition’ and ‘Enforcement’ of Foreign Judgments Distinguished

1. Recognition of a foreign judgment

 4

Case:

Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., et al., 95 Phil. 947 (1954);

93 Phil. 1034 (1953)

2. Recognition involves merely the sense of justice

Case:

Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., supra

3. Recognition does not require either an action or a special

proceeding

Cases:

Gorayeb v. Hashim, 50 Phil. 22 (1927)

Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., supra

4. Recognition may exist without enforcement

See:

Nussbaum, Principles of Private International Law, 229

XIII. Before Courts Can Give Effect of ‘Res Judicata’ to a Foreign Judgment —
What Must Be Shown

Read:

Rule 39, Sec. 50 of The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

Case:

Roehr v. Rodriguez, 404 SCRA 495 (2003)

XIV. Kinds of Conflicts Rules

1. The one-sided (unilateral rule)

Read:

Art. 15, Philippine Internal Law

2. The all-sided (multi-lateral rule)

Read:

Art. 16, Foreign Law

XV. Parts of a Conflicts Rules

 5

1. The factual situation

2. The point of contact or connecting factor

XVI. Characterization (or Classification or Qualification)

1. Steps in Characterization

2. The “Totality Approach” to the Characterization of a Problem as a

Substantive or as a Procedural Matter

3. If a Cause of Action that Arose in Hongkong Has Prescribed There,

But Has Not Yet Prescribed in the Philippines, Which Rule Shall Our
Courts Follow?

Case:

D’Almeida v. Hagedorn, L-1080, 22 May 1957

XVII. The Theories on Personal Law or the Law that Should Govern
Status and Capacity in General

1. The NATIONALITY theory

2. The DOMICILIARY theory

3. The SITUS theory

XVIII. Domicile’ Distinguished from ‘Citizenship’ or ‘Nationality’

XIX. Definition of ‘Domicile’

XX. The Three (3) Kinds of Domicile

1. The Domicile of Origin

2. The Constructive Domicile or the Domicile by Operation of Law

3. The Domicile of Choice

XXI. Fundamental Principles Governing Domicile of Choice

Cases:

Velilla v. Posadas, 62 Phil. 624 (1935)

Zuellig v. Republic of the Philippines, 83 Phil. 768 (1949)

Quetulio v. Ruiz, CA, 46 O.G. 155

Gallego v. Vera, 73 Phil. 453 (1941)

 6

XXII. Introduction to the Renvoi Problem

1. Proposed Solutions

2. ‘Double Renvoi’

3. Case of Testate Estate of Edward E. Christensen

4. Transmission

5. Renvoi’ (Whether Single or Double) Distinguished from

'Transmission’

XXIII. Synopsis of Conflicts Rules

REQUIRED CASES TO BE READ AND DIGESTED:

1) Shioji vs. Harvey (43 Phil. 333, 27 April 1922)

2) Gibbs vs. Government of the Philippine Islands (59 Phil. 293, 23 December
1933)
3) Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (75 Phil. 113, 17 September 1945)
4) Davis Winship vs. Philippine Trust Co. (90 Phil. 744, 31 January 1952)
5) King vs. Sycip (94 Phil. 784, 23 April 1954)
6) Pacific Micronisian Line, Inc. vs. Del Rosario and Pelingon (96 Phil. 23, 23
October 1954)
7) Eusebio vs. Eusebio, et al. (100 Phil. 593, 28 December 1956)
8) Lim, etc. vs. Brownell, Jr., etc. and Kagawa (107 Phil. 344, 24 March 1960)
9) Far East Int’l Import and Export Corp. vs. Nankai Kogyo Co., Ltd. (6 SCRA
725, 30 November 1962)
10) Aznar vs. Garcia (7 SCRA 95, 31 January 1963)
11) Ellis vs. Republic (7 SCRA 962, 30 April 1963)
12) Dilweg vs. Phillips (12 SCRA 243, 30 October 1964)
13) Rayray vs. Chae Kyung Lee (18 SCRA 450, 26 October 1966)
14) Ong Huan Tin vs. Republic (19 SCRA 966, 27 April 1967)
15) Bellis vs. Bellis (20 SCRA 358, 6 June 1967)
16) Philippine Banking Corporation vs. Lui She (21 SCRA 52, 12 September 1967)
17) Montalban vs. Maximo (22 SCRA 1070, 15 March 1968)
18) Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Callano (25 SCRA 890, 31
October 1968)
19) Burca vs. Republic (51 SCRA 248, 15 June 1973)
20) Dangwa Transportation Co. Inc. vs. Sarmiento (75 SCRA 124, 31 January
1977)
21) Gokongwei, Jr. vs. Securities and Exchange Commission (89 SCRA 336, 11
April 1979)
22) Laurel vs. Garcia (187 SCRA 797, 25 July 1990)
 7

23) Santos III vs. Northwest Orient Airlines (210 SCRA 256, 23 June 1992)
24) Cadalin vs. POEA’s Administrator (238 SCRA 721, 5 December 1994)
25) Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (241 SCRA 192, 9
February 1995)
26) Romualdez-Marcos vs. Commission on Elections (248 SCRA 300, 18
September 1995)
27) Dumez Company vs. National Labor Relations Commission (258 SCRA 564,
11 July 1996)
28) Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Court of Appeals (297 SCRA 469, 8 October 1998)
29) Bank of America, NT & SA vs. American Realty Corporation (321 SCRA 659,
29 December 1999)
30) Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion (322 SCRA 160, 18 January 2000)
31) University of the East vs. Jader (325 SCRA 804, 17 February 2000)
32) Llorente vs. Court of Appeals (345 SCRA 592, 23 November 2000)
33) Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation vs. V.P.
Eusebio Construction, Inc. (434 SCRA 202, 13 July 2004)
34) Mijares vs. Ranada (455 SCRA 397, 12 April 2005)
35) Saludo, Jr. vs. American Express International, Inc. (487 SCRA 462, 19 April
2006)
36) EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission (537 SCRA 409, 26 October 2007)
37) Hasegawa vs. Kitamura (538 SCRA 261, 23 November 2007)
38) Raytheon International, Inc. vs. Rouzie, Jr. (546 SCRA 555, 26 February 2008)
39) Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. vs. Social Security Commission (560 SCRA
719, 31 July 2008)
40) LWV Construction Corporation vs. Dupo (592 SCRA 495, 13 July 2009)
41) A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law (24
November 2009)
42) Remo vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs (614 SCRA 281, 5 March 2010)
43) Fujiki vs. Marinay (700 SCRA 69, 26 June 2013)
44) Medical Plaza Makati Condominium Corporation vs. Cullen (709 SCRA 110,
11 November 2013)
45) Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Atlanta Industries, Inc. (729 SCRA 12, 2
July 2014)
46) Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. vs. Cabiles (732 SCRA 22, 5 August
2014)
47) Orion Savings Bank vs. Suzuki (740 SCRA 345, 12 November 2014)
48) Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem (744 SCRA 516, 10 December 2014)

Copy furnished to:

 8

ATY. JOSE I. DE LA RAMA, JR., LL.M.

Dean
College of Law and Criminal Justice Education
Tarlac State University
2/F Dean’s Office, Tarlac State University Gym
G. Romulo Boulevard, Tarlac City 2300
Email: [email protected]/[email protected]