Conflict of Laws

I. INTRODUCTION TO CONFLICT OF LAWS

International Law – rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of States
and of international organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some of their
relations with persons, whether natural or juridical.

Branches of International Law:

1. Public International Law (PIL) – governs the relationship of States and International Entities;
2. Private International Law (PRIL) – comprehends laws regulating private interactions across
national frontiers.

PIL PRIL

International Conventions, Internation

Source al Custom, general principles of law, Domestic and municipal Laws
judicial decisions and teachings

Subjects States and International Organizations Individuals and Corporations

- Private International Law is that branch of law which regulates the comity of states in giving
effect in one to the municipal laws of another relating private persons, or concerns the rights of
persons…. Based on the broad general principle that one country will respect and give effect
to the laws of another so far as can be done consistently with its own interest.

Why we need to learn conflict of laws?

1. For us to be guided by resolving issues that involves foreign element.
2. To protect private individuals in asserting their rights and in seeking remedies.

Phases in Conflict Resolution

1. Jurisdiction;
2. Choice of Law;
3. Recognition and Enforcement of Judgment

Definition of terms…

1. Foreign Element - a factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is thus affected by
the diverse laws of two or more states;

2. Comity – the recognition which one state allows within its territory to the legislative, executive,
or judicial acts of another state.

3. Lex situs – the applicable law regarding the acquisition, transfer and devolution of the title to
property is the law where the property is located;

4. Lex fori – the law of the forum, where the case is filed;

5. Lex loci actus – the law of the place where the act is done;

6. Lex loci celebrationis/Contractus – the law of the place where the contract is entered into
or place of performance;

7. Lex loci delictus – the law of the place where the offense or wrong took place;
 8. Lex loci domicilli - the law of the place of the domicile of the person

9. Lex loci rei sitae (lex situs) – the law of the place where a thing is situated

10. Kilberg doctrine - the forum is not bound by the law of the place of injury or death as to the
limitation on damages for wrongful act because such rule is procedural and hence, the law of
the forum governs the issue;

11. Center of gravity doctrine (most significant theory; grouping of contacts) – choice of
law problems in conflict of laws are resolved by the application of the law of the jurisdiction
which has the most significant relationship to or contact with the event and parties to litigation
and the issue therein;

General Rule (PRIL)

Law of one country has no application and force in another country.

EXCEPTION: Consent: when our laws provide extraterritorial effect to our laws with respect to citizens
and nationals.

Remedies involved (PRIL)

1. Enforcement of rights;
2. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment.

PRIL

Conflict of laws presupposes two or more conflicting laws, between a local and foreign law involving issues
with foreign element/s, which requires a determination of which law should apply.

3 ways of solving conflict of laws

1. Court might refuse to hear the case and dismiss it on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or forum
non conveniens;
2. Court might decide the case by its own local law;
3. Court might decide the case by special rules formulated to address the problem.

A. Choice of Law Principles

GENERAL RULE: Foreign laws and judgments have no effect in the Philippines

EXCEPTION: Consent, express (there is a law) or implied (comity)

B. Characterization and Points of Contact

Doctrine of Qualification – process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of
question specified in a conflicts rule; to enable the forum to select the proper law

Elements of Characterization
1. Foreign Element;
2. Points of contact;
3. Proper law applicable

Test Factors/Points of Contact/ Connecting Factors

1. Nationality, domicile, residence, place of sojourn or origin of the person;
2. The seat of a legal or juridical person, such as corporation;
3. The situs of a thing;
4. The place where an act has been done. i.e. contracts and torts
5. The place where an act is intended to come into effect; i.e. the place where a SPA/Contract is
to be performed;
6. The intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the
lex loci intentionis;
 7. The place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done, the lex fori.
8. The flag of the ship, is decisive of practically all legal relationship of the ship and of the master
or owner as such.

Saudi Arabia Airlines Vs. CA [GR No. 122191, Oct. 8, 1998]

o Facts:
Morada, a Filipina flight stewardess for SUADIA, was attempted raped by Saudi Arabian national
crewmembers in Indonesia. She returned to Manila and while there, she was convinced by SAUDIA
manager to go to Jeddah and sign some papers, purporting to be release forms in favor of her fellow
crewmembers. It turned out that the documents were court summons and orders, trying and finding
her guilty of adultery and other violations of Islamic tradition. Upon her release and return to Manila,
she filed a case for damages based on Art. 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.

Art. 19 & 21, NCC

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act
with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

o Issue:
WON Morada is entitled to claim for damages.

o Held:
There is a conflicts problem as there is a foreign element involved – Morada is employed by a
resident foreign corporation, an international carrier, and some of the acts complained of occurred in
Jeddah.

The trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter – damage suit based on Art. 19 and 21 – and
over the persons of Morada (plaintiff) and SAUDIA (voluntary submission by filing answer).

For characterization, the point of contact considered is the lex loci actus or the place where the
tortuous act causing the injury occurred – Manila, Philippines since this is where SAUDIA deceived
Morada. The state of the most significant relationship rule was also applied, SC holding that the
Philippines is where the over-all harm of the injury of the person, reputation, social standing and
human rights of Morada had lodged.
IN SUM: Morada is entitled to recovery for Damages

Choice of Applicable Law..

o 2 important questions in a choice-of-law problem.
1. What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant factors
occurred in two or more states – solved by characterization;
2. To what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation.

PH statutory directives on choice of law

1. Personal Law – Nationality Rule

Family rights and duties – those which arise from family relations, and include those
between husband and wife, and between parent and child, among other ascendants and their
descendants and among brothers and sisters;

Status/Condition
– birth, marriage, death, legal separation, annulment of marriage, judgment declaring the
nullity of marriage, legitimation, adoption, acknowledgment of natural children, naturalization, loss or
recovery of citizenship, civil interdiction, judicial determination of filiation, voluntary emancipation of a
minor and change of name.

Legal Capacity
 2. Property – Lex rei sitae.

Personal Law; Nationality Rule; Renvoi Doctrine; Doctrine of Processual Presumption

Bellis vs. Bellis, G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967

o Facts:
Amos Bellis, a US citizen, died a resident of Texas. He left two wills – one devising a certain amount
of money to his first wife and three illegitimate children and another, leaving the rest of his estate to
his seven legitimate children. Before partition, the illegitimate children who are Filipinos opposed on
the ground that they are deprived of their legitimes.

o Issue:
Whether the applicable law is Texas Law or Philippine Laws

Held:
Applying the nationality rule, the law of Texas should govern the intrinsic validity of the will and
therefore answer the question on entitlement of legitimes.

[Under Texas Law – testator may dispose of his property according to his will.]

Renvoi doctrine is not applicable because there is no conflict as to the nationality and domicile of
Bellis. He is both a citizen and a resident of Texas. So even if assuming the law of Texas applies the
domiciliary rule, it is still Texas law that governs because his domicile is texas.

Therefore, the illegitimate Filipino children are not entitled for their claim of legitimes.

Definition of terms; (Principles)

Lex situs –
Lex fori –
Lex loci actus –
Lex loci celebrationis –
Lex loci contractus –
Lex loci delictus –
Lex loci domicilli –
Most Significant Theory/ Center of Gravity Doctrine -

Legal Capacity: Law of the place where the contract was entered into

Government vs. Frank, G.R. No. 2935, March 23, 1909

o Facts:
In Chicago, USA, Frank entered into an employment contract as stenographer with the Government.
The contract is to be performed in the Philippines. However, upon arrival in the Philippines, Frank left
the service. Government thus sued him for breach. Frank raised the defense of minority, contending
that by Philippine laws, he does not have legal capacity to enter into contracts.

o Issue:
Whether or not Frank has legal capacity to enter into contracts.

Held:
It is not disputed that at the time and place of the making of the contract in question, the defendant
had full capacity to make the same. 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 with its performance are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of
performance. Matters respecting a remedy, such as the bringing of suit, admissibility of evidence,
and statutes of limitations, depend upon the law of the place where the suit is brought.

The plaintiff (defendant) being fully qualified to enter into contract at the place and time the contract
is made, he cannot implead infancy as a defense at the place where the contract if being enforced.
 Application of Foreign Law

General Rule:
No foreign law may or should interfere with the operation and application of the Philippine laws.

Exceptions:
1. When the Philippine Legislature has, by law, given its consent to the extension of a specific
foreign law to the Philippines (e.g. COGSA);

Sec. 1. That the provisions of Public Act No. 521 of the 7th Congress of the United States,
approved on April 16, 1936, be accepted, as it is hereby accepted to be made applicable to all
contracts for the carriage of goods by sea to and from Philippine ports in foreign trade: Provided,
that nothing in this Act shall be construed as repealing any existing provision of the Code of
Commerce which is now in force, or as limiting its application.
2. When Congress enacts a law adopting or copying a specific foreign statute;
3. When State enters into a treaty or convention;
4. When parties themselves stipulate that foreign law governs their relationship;
5. Borrowing Statute – a statute which directs the court of the forum to apply the foreign
statute to the pending claims based on the foreign law [Doña Paz Case]; and
6. When Philippine conflict of laws rule refer to foreign law as applicable law (e.g. nationality
principle/renvoi doctrine)

Exception to the borrowing statute…

[Cadalin vs. POEA, G.R. No. L-104776, Dec. 5, 1994

o Facts:
Cadalin et. al. are OCWs deployed to various Middle East countries, including Bahrain. Under the
contracts, the choice of applicable law is Bahrain law in case of contractual disputes. The contracts
were later pre-terminated, so Cadalin et. Al. filed with RTC a case for recovery of unpaid wages, etc.
Under Bahrain law, the action has already prescribed.

o Issue:
WON Bahrain law should be applied on the question of prescription of action.

Held:
Statute of limitations is sui generis – it may be procedural or substantive, depending on the
characterization given such a law. This distinction, however, becomes irrelevant when there is
borrowing statute, as in the case of our ROC, which provides that any action barred under the law of
the country where the Cause of Action arose is also barred in the PH.

However, in this case, SC did not apply our ROC on the ground that doing so would contravene the
constitutional provision on protecting the rights of labor. The courts of the forum will not enforce a
foreign claims obnoxious to the forum’s public policy [Court’s duty to uphold the Constitution]

Agreement of Applicable Law…

(General Rule)
Parties are free to stipulate as to the applicable foreign law to govern their dispute arising
from contract.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Where there is some basis for applying law of the forum (minimum contact);
2. Where plaintiff and defendant are both residents of the forum; and
3. Where a reasonable reading of the choice of law and forum agreement does not preclude
the filing of the action in the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant. (EXCLUSIVITY)
 If there is no agreement as to applicable law governing contract—
Apply the law of the State of the Most Significant Relationship, taking into account the ff
CONTACTS:
1. Place of contracting [Lex Loci Contractus];
2. Place of negotiation of the contract [Lex Loci Contractus];
3. Place of performance [Lex Loci Contractus/Celebrationis];
4. Location of the subject matter of the contract [Lex Situs]; and
5. Domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the
contracting parties [Nationality/Domicilliary Principle].

Choice of law on jurisdiction treated as choice of venue…

HSBC vs. Sherman, G.R. No. 72494, Aug. 11, 1989

o Facts:
A Singaporean company applied with and was granted by the Singaporean branch of HSBC an
overdraft facility, secured by a Joint and Several Guarantee executed by the former’s directors
(Filipino residents). In the guarantee, there is a clause stipulating that jurisdiction over any dispute
arising from the transaction is vested with the Singaporean courts. When the Singaporean
company defaulted, HSBC filed a suit against the directors in the Philippines.

o Issue:
WON the choice of law clause should be upheld?

Held:
Jurisdiction, which finds its source in sovereignty, cannot be bargained away by the parties. The
State can assume jurisdiction when there is a reasonable basis of exercising it. To be
reasonable, the jurisdiction must be based on some minimum contacts that will not offend traditional
notions on fair play and substantial justice.

In the present case, the minimum contact considered is the Philippine residence of the private
respondents. In assuming jurisdiction, SC held that the parties did not stipulate that only the courts
of Singapore, to the exclusion of all the rest, has jurisdiction.

(Because jurisdiction cannot be stipulated upon, the choice of jurisdiction was treated as a choice of
venue. And applying thus, the choice of venue is only permissive, in the absence of restrictive words
to lend exclusivity to the chosen forum.)

How to resolve Conflict of Laws?

First, determine jurisdiction of the forum:
 No jurisdiction;
 Has jurisdiction but refuse to exercise it (forum non conveniens);
 Has jurisdiction and exercises it – move to second step.

Second, determine existence of conflict of laws

 No conflict – apply foreign or local law, as case may be;
 Has conflict – move to third step

Third, determine choice of law (law applicable) – Apply the different principles in COL Resolution.
Lex situs –
Lex fori –
Lex loci actus –
Lex loci celebrationis –
Lex loci contractus –
Lex loci delictus –
Lex loci domicilli –
Most Significant Theory/ Center of Gravity Doctrine –
 Local law
 Foreign law
II. APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAW

1. By statutory directives (consent of the State);

2. By agreement of the parties;
3. By treaty or convention; and
4. By conflict of laws rule

A. Additional Principles governing Conflict of Law Cases…

1. Substance vs. Procedural

All matters of procedure are governed by the law of the forum where the case is filed, while
matters of substance are governed by the law of the country where the cause of action arose.
Problem:
Some laws may be treated by one country as procedural and by another country as substantive
(e.g. statute of limitations)

Solution:
Government Interest Analysis – the law of the country whose interest is most impaired by
failure to apply its statute should be applied;
Borrowing Statute – the law of the country has a statute “borrowing” the prescriptive period
provided in the foreign statute; EXCEPTION: when contrary to public policy or prohibitive laws.

2. Center of Gravity Doctrine

Law of the State which has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and with the
parties determines their rights and liabilities in tort or in contract.

3. Renvoi Doctrine (Table Tennis Theory)

The conflict of law rule of the forum resorts to the foreign law, which in turn refers back to the law
of the forum.

Renvoi Doctrine Applied

Aznar vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-16749, Jan. 3, 1963

o Facts:
Edward Christensen, who at his death was a US citizen but domiciled in the Philippines, left a will,
devising unto Maria Helen a certain amount of money and giving the rest of his estate to Maria Lucy.
Helen opposed the partition on the ground that she is deprived of her legitime. Her contention is that
the law of California directs that the law of the domicile (Philippines) should govern the will..
o Issue:
WON the national law or the domiciliary law should apply.
PH law on Properties
Art. 16, NCC- Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where
it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of succession and to
the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be
regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property
may be found.

Held:
The intrinsic validity of the will is governed by the national law of the decedent. In the present case,
the national law of Edward is the laws of California. Art. 946 of the California Civil Code provides that
the law of domicile applies. SC held that the applicable law is Art. 946, which is the conflict of laws
rule of California.

Thus, since Art. 946 contains a refer-back to Philippine laws (the law of the domicile), then Maria
Helen is entitled to her legitime based on the pertinent provision of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines (succession).

4. Lex Fori
The law of the forum governs all matters pertaining to procedural and remedial rights.
 B. Applicability of Foreign Laws and its Exceptions

When Foreign law, even though applicable, may not be given application:
1. Foreign law contravenes prohibitive law or public policy of the forum;
2. Relationship of the parties affects public interest;
3. Real property is involved (apply lex rei sitae);
4. Foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum;
5. Foreign law is procedural in nature; and
6. Foreign law is penal in nature.

Exception: Contrary to sound public policy…

Bank of America, NT vs. American Realty Corp, G.R. No. 133876, Dec. 29, 1999

o Facts:
Bank of America, duly licensed to do business in the Philippines and existing under the laws of
California, USA, granted US Dollar loans to certain foreign corporate borrowers. These loans were
secured by two real estate mortgages by American Realty, a domestic corporation. When the
borrowers defaulted, Bank of America sued them before English courts.

While these cases were pending, Bank of America likewise judicially foreclosed the real estate
mortgages in the Philippines. Thus, American Realty sued for damages against Bank of America.
o Issue:
WON Bank of America can judicially foreclose the real estate mortgages despite pendency of the civil
suits before English Courts?

Held:
English law purportedly allows the filing of judicial foreclosure of mortgage despite pendency of civil
suit for collection. But English law was never properly impleaded and proven. Thus, the doctrine of
processual presumption applies.

SC further held that even assuming arguendo that English laws were proven, said foreign law
would still no find applicability. When the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a
sound and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order
shall not be applied.

Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for
their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or
judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

The public policy sought to be protected in the instant is the principle imbedded in our jurisdiction
proscribing the splitting of a single cause of action.

Moreover, the foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice
to the citizens or residents of the forum.

C. Authentication, Electronic Evidence and Judicial Cognizance of Foreign Courts

How foreign public documents are proved:

1. Official Publication;
2. Certified true copy of the document, with certificate that such officer has custody of the
document.

General Rule:
Philippine courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of foreign laws.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Where there are exceptional circumstances when the foreign laws are already within the
actual knowledge of the court
2. Where the courts are familiar with the specific foreign law (e.g. Spanish Civil Law);
3. Where the adverse party did not dispute the application of foreign law; and
 4. Where the tribunal is a quasi-judicial body which is not bound by the strict rules of
technicality.

III. CITIZENSHIP AND DOMICILE

Nationality Principle

A. The law of the country where a person is a national governs his family rights and duties,
status, condition and legal capacity.

- As opposed to “domiciliary principle” which applies the law of the country of domicile.

B. Citizenship and Mode of Acquisition

Citizenship – status of being a citizen of a state who owes allegiance to the State and is entitled
to its protection and to the enjoyment of civil and political rights therein.

Who are citizens of the PH?

1. [Sec. 1, Article IV, 1987 Constitution]:

 Those who are citizens of the PH at the time of the adoption of the 1987
Constitution;
 Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the PH;
 Those born before Jan. 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect PH citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority
 Those who are naturalized in accordance with law

2. Juridical Persons (nationality):

60%Filipino-owned

2 Modes of Acquiring PH Citizenship:

1. By blood (jus sanguinis) – Natural-Born Citizen
2. By naturalization – naturalized persons

 Jus Sanguinis

Valles vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, Aug. 9, 2000

o Facts:
Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to a Filipino Father and an Australian
mother. In 1949, at the age of 15, she left Australia and came to settle in the PH, where she later
married a Filipino and has since then participated in the electoral process not only as a voter but as a
candidate, as well.
o Issue:
WON Rosalind is an Australian or a Filipino.

Held:
The PH law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the
nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the
doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.

Therefore, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. The
fact of being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If AUS
follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim AUS citizenship
resulting to her possession of dual citizenship.

The fact that she holds an AUS passport and alien registration certificate is an assertion of her AUS
 citizenship but not a renunciation of her PH citizenship. Moreover, by filing her certificate of
candidacy, she has effectively renounced her AUS citizenship.

Election of Citizenship
Procedure:
1. Express such intention in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned
before any officer authorized to administer oath;
2. File the sworn statement, together with oath of allegiance to the PH Constitution, with
the nearest civil registry.

Dual Citizenship
The status of a person who is a citizen of two or more countries at the same time.
WHO MAY POSSESS AS SUCH?
1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which
follow the principle of jus soli;
2. Those born in the PH of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of
their father’s country, such children are citizens of that country;
3. Those who marry aliens, if by the laws of the latter’s country, the former are
considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have
renounced PH citizenship;
4. Those who retained or reacquired their PH citizenship under RA 9225 after
having been naturalized in a foreign country.
General Rule:
 Dual citizenship is retained.

Exception:
 The person expressly renounces his other citizenship by filing a certificate of candidacy
or by accepting an appointive position in government.

Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999

o Facts:
Mercado and Manzano are both running for vice-mayor of Makati City. Manzano got the highest
number of votes but his proclamation was suspended in view of the pending petition for his
disqualification on the ground that he is an American citizen. Manzano was born in 1955 of Filipino
father and mother.

However, since he is born in the US, he is considered as an American citizen under the jus soli
doctrine. Upon his return to the PH, he is registered as a foreigner with the BI.
o Issue:
WON Manzano is disqualified on the ground that he is an alien.
Held:
Manzano is a dual citizen, but his being such does not disqualify him from running for office. Under
the LGC, what is prohibited is dual allegiance and not dual citizenship.

Dual allegiance refers to a situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act,
loyalty to two or more states. Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the concurrent application
of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the
said states.

Moreover, Manzano is considered to have renounced his American citizenship by filing his COC.

Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship

How PH Citizenship is lost?
 By naturalization in foreign country;
 By express renunciation of citizenship (dual);
 By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of foreign
country;
 By accepting commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign country
 By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization; and
  By having been declared by competent officer of the PH armed forces in time of war, unless
subsequently a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted

Express Renunciation of PH Citizenship

Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, G.R. No. L-83882, 24 Jan. 1989

o Facts:
Petitioner is a Portuguese national who acquired PH Citizenship by naturalization. However, despite
his naturalization, he still applied for and was issued a Portuguese passport and declared his
nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed.
o Issue:
Whether petitioner’s acts constitute renunciation of his PH citizenship?
Held:
Express renunciation means a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to
inference or implication. Petitioner, with full knowledge, and legal capacity, after having renounced
his Portuguese citizenship, applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport.

To the mind of the court, the foregoing acts considered together constitute an express renunciation
of petitioner’s PH citizenship acquired through naturalization.

How PH citizenship is reacquired?

1. By direct act of congress;
2. By naturalization – take the oath of allegiance to the Republic (RA 9225);
3. By administrative repatriation – take the oath of allegiance to the Republic and register the same in
the local civil registry of the place where person resides; original citizenship restored

Repatriation
Bengson III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, 7 May 2001

o Facts:
Respondent Cruz was a natural-born Filipino who lost his PH Citizenship when he enlisted in the US
Marine Corps and subsequently became a naturalized American. When he returned to the PH, he
reacquired his PH Citizenship through repatriation. Later, he ran for a seat in Congress and won. But
Bengson III questioned his election into office on the ground that he was not a natural-born Filipino
o Issue:
WON Cruz’s repatriation resulted in his reacquisition of his status as natural-born
Filipino?

Held:
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality.
The act of repatriation allows the recovery of his original status before he lost his PH
Citizenship.
Thus, Respondent Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen.

Citizenship by Naturalization
3 modes of naturalization:
1. Administrative naturalization – available only to aliens born and residing in the PH;
2. Judicial naturalization; and
3. Legislative naturalization

Qualifications for administrative naturalization (RA 9139)

1. Must be born in the PH and residing therein SB;
2. Must !< 18 y/o at the time of filing the petition;
3. Must be of good moral character and believes in the underlying principle of the
Constitution;
4. Must have received his primary and secondary education in any public or private
education institution;
 5. Must have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation;
6. Must able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of the PH; and
7. Must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to learn and
embrace the customs, tradition and ideals of the Filipino people.

Grounds for Cancellation of PH Citizenship

1. Made any false statement or misrepresentation or committed violation of law, rules
or regulation in connection with the petition for naturalization;
2. Within 5 years next ff the grant of PH citizenship, established permanent residence
in a foreign country – covers the wife and children;
3. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy in violation of any constitutional or legal
provision requiring PH Citizenship – covers the wife and children; and
4. Committed any act inimical to national security – covers the wife and children

Jurisprudence…
1. Maquiling vs. COMELEC, GR No. 195649, 16 April 2013;
2. Arnado vs. COMELEC, GR No. 210164, 18 August 2015

Summary on Citizenship

 If two (2) or more States recognize a person as their citizen (by application of their
respective laws), such person is considered to be of dual or multiple citizenship;
 Dual citizenship is retained; unless the act constitutes a renunciation of his/her other
citizenship;
 In our jurisdiction, dual citizens who filed COC shall be considered to have waived his/her
foreign citizenship at the time of the filing [Mercado vs Manzano];
 Natural born Filipino citizens who were naturalized in other countries may retain/reacquire
their Filipino citizenship under RA 9225;
 Those who reacquire/retain their citizenship shall regain their former status as natural born
Filipino citizens;
 Those seeking elective public office shall meet the qualification for holding such public office
as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all
foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath [Sec
5(2), RA 9225];
 Reacquisition vs Retention of Citizenship under RA 9225 [17 September 2003];
 Naturalization in foreign countries and/or enlisting in the military in foreign countries shall
be considered ipso facto to have lost Filipino citizenship;
 The use of foreign passport and other commercial documents after reacquisition of Filipino
citizenship under RA 9225 shall be considered as repudiation of reacquisition [Maquiling vs.
COMELEC, GR No. 195649, 16 April 2013]

Foundling?

 United States provision on Citizenship

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

 PH Provision on Citizenship [Sec. 1, Article IV, 1987 Constitution]:

“Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines”

 Foundlings [Art. 14, 1930 Hague Convention];

A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth. If the
child's parentage is established, its nationality shall be determined by the rules applicable in cases
where the parentage is known.
A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on the territory of the
State in which its was found.
  Dual Citizenship vs. Dual Allegiance

Jurisprudence…
1. Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, GR No. 221697-2211700, 8 March 2016;

Let’s talk about Domicile

The Lex Domicilii Rule

 Domiciliary Principle – the law of the place of domicile governs the resolution of
the given issue;
 Domicile – place of habitual residence; a place to which, whenever absent for
business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and
circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent. [Imelda Marcos vs
COMELEC]

Domicile (Elements)
1. Physical Appearance;
2. Animus Manendi – intention of returning there permanently
**The law of the forum governs the standards of domicile. If
domicile is put in issue, the court will apply its own laws to determine the
controversy.

Kinds of Domicile
1. By origin or by birth;
2. By choice; and
3. By operation of law.

3 rules re: Domicile

1. A man has a domicile somewhere;
2. A domicile once established remains until a new one is acquired; and
3. A man can have but only one domicile at a time.

How a new domicile is acquired?

1. Actual removal or actual change of domicile;
2. Bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and
establishing a new one; and
3. Acts which corresponds with such purpose.
**All the foregoing elements must be proved in order to rebut the
 presumption of continuity of Domicile.

Domicile and Residence

Residence – the actual relationship of an individual to a certain place;
physical presence of a person in a given place, area, community or country.
Residence is used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or
temporary; Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when
absent, one has the intention of returning.
A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another.

Residence (may) not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the
intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one domicile for
the same purpose at any time, but may have numerous places of residence.
[Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, GR No. 119976, 18 Sept. 1995]

Term “Residence” for election purposes

Marcos vs COMELEC

o Facts:
Petitioner Imelda Marcos filed her COC for the position of Rep. of the 1st District of Leyte. She stated
in the COC that she is a resident of the place for seven months. Private respondent Montejo
subsequently filed a petition for Cancellation and Disqualification on the ground that Imelda failed to
meet the constitutional requirement of one-year residency.
COMELEC granted the petition for disqualification, holding that Imelda is deemed to have abandoned
Tacloban City as her place of domicile when she lived and even voted in Ilocos and Manila.
o Issue:
WON Imelda is deemed to have abandoned her domicile of origin.
How a new domicile is acquired?
1. Actual removal or actual change of domicile;
2. Bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one;
and
3. Acts which corresponds with such purpose.
**All the foregoing elements must be proved in order to rebut the presumption of
continuity of Domicile.

o Held:
An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained residence in different
places. Residence implies a factual relationship to a given place for various purposes. The absence
from legal residence or domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do other things of temporary
or semi-permanent nature does not constitute loss of residence. Thus, Marcos is still considered
to have Tacloban as domicile of origin.

Comments….
Statutory Construction:
“When the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.”

Sec. 6, Art. IV, 1987 Constitution

No person shall be a member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-
born citizen of the PH and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five
years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives,
a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident
thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day
of the election

Nationality and Domicile of Corporation

 The nationality of a private corporation is determined by the character or citizenship
of its controlling stockholders.
 The domicile of a domestic corporation is its principal place of business (contained
in the AOI). For foreign corporations, their domicile is in the country under whose
 laws they are incorporated.

2 Tests to determine Filipino Corporation

1. Grandfather Rule – governs the strict application of the ownership of a
corporation (generally 60% Filipino-owned);
2. Control Test – a corporation that is at least 60% Filipino-owned is considered a
Filipino for purposes of determining the Filipino ownership of a corporation whose
nationality is put in issue.

Corporation domiciled in one State but doing business in another is a resident

of the latter

Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. vs. CA, GR No. 112573, 9 Feb 1995

o Facts:
Northwest, a US corporation, and Sharp, a Filipino Corporation but with a branch in Japan, entered
into an agreement whereby the former authorized the latter to sell its air transportation tickets.
Sharp, however, was unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales, prompting Northwest to sue
for collection in Japan.

Summons was served on Sharp’s branch office in Japan but because the manager authorized to
receive summons was said to be in Manila, the same was also served on Sharp’s Manila head office
through diplomatic channels. Sharp nevertheless failed to appear during the hearing and judgment
was rendered. Northwest now filed a case before the Philippine court to enforce the foreign
judgment.

o Issue:
WON the Japanese court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Sharp?

o Held:
The domicile of a corporation belongs to the state where it was incorporated. Moreover, 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.

In as much as Sharp was admittedly doing business in Japan through its duly registered branches at
the time the collection suit was filed, then in the light of processual presumption, Sharp may be
deemed a resident of Japan. Hence, Japan court acquired jurisdiction over Sharp. Upon the proper
service of summons to the manager of Sharp, Japan validly acquired jurisdiction over Sharp.
Hence, Sharp is civilly liable to Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc.

Foreign corporation doing business in PH

State Investment House, Inc. vs. Citibank, et.al. GR No. 79926-27, 17 Oct. 1991

o Facts:
Consolidated Mines, Inc. (CMI) obtained loans from Citibank, Bank of America and HSBC, all foreign
corporations but with branches in the PH. Meanwhile, State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI) and State
Financing Center, Inc. (SFCI), also creditors of CMI, filed collection suits against the latter with writs
of preliminary attachment.

Subsequently, the 3 banks jointly filed with the court a petition for involuntary insolvency of CMI.
SIHI and SFCI opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners are not resident creditors in
contemplation of the Insolvency Law.

o Issue:
WON the Japanese court acquired jurisdiction over the person of SharpWON a foreign corporation
with a branch in the PH and doing business therein can be considered a resident?

o Held:
Sec. 20, Insolvency Law – foreign corporations duly licensed to do business in the PH are considered
residents. Thus, the 3 banks has the legal personality to sue CMI.