I

II

1. Scope of Conflict of Laws (1)

a. NATURE
It is the municipal law or private law of each state which regulates relations of
individuals among themselves or with their state
It is the law of the forum that furnishes the yardstick for the presence or absence of
jurisdiction
b. Definition
Conflict of Laws is that part of the municipal law of a state which directs its
courts and administrative agencies, when confronted with a legal problem
involving foreign element, whether or not they should apply a foreign law or
foreign laws
c. Importance
It is important in order to be able to:
1. Adjust conflicting rights in international, mercantile and corporate
transactions
2. Solve personal, family, property and successional contractual
problems, possessed of facts or elements operating in two or more
states.
2. Diversity of laws customs and practice
a. As of today, there are so many independent sovereign states and the number is still
growing. In the exercise of sovereignty, each of these states promulgates its own
laws to govern relations of individuals and juridical entities within its own sphere of
influence.
b. Some states may have similar laws but due to influence of religion, culture and
customs, these laws may be interpreted and applied differently.
3. Object, function and scope
a. Object and Function
The object and function of COL is to provide rational and valid rules or
guidelines in deciding cases where either of the parties, events or
transactions is linked to more than one jurisdiction.
It aims to promote stability and uniformity of solutions provided by the laws
and courts of each state called upon to decide conflict cases.
b. Scope:
It covers the entire range of laws as it cuts across the subjects of jurisdiction
of local courts or tribunals, law on evidence or proof of foreign law, the
personal law of individuals and juridical entities, naturalization law, laws on
domicile and residence, family relations, contracts, torts, corporation law and
property law.
c. FUNCTIONS
To determine which country has jurisdiction
To determine the applicability to a particular case of either local or foreign law
To determine the force, validity and effectiveness of a foreign judgment.
1. Brief History of Conflict of Law (25)
a. The Romans developed a body of rules to govern relations and resolve disputes
between foreigners and roman citizens
b. But COL as a rule to govern relations of States arose with the rise of Italian city
states which cultivated their respective municipal laws. As a result, it gave rise to
the problem of which law to apply in certain transactions between citizens of
different city states. This prompted jurists to make an intensive study of the conflict
of laws.
c. To resolve the problem, Italian jurists such as Bartolus, considered the Father of
Conflict of laws, formulated the Theory of Statutes.

d. The STATUTE further developed into real, personal and mixed statutes. Real statutes
were applied to immovable properties while personal statutes followed the person
even outside his domicile. Contracts, depending on where they were entered into by
different nationals fell under the domain of mixed statutes.
III
1. Sources of Conflict of law (1)
a. Indirect sources
i. Natural moral law
ii. Works of writers
b. Direct sources
i. Constitutions
ii. Codification
iii. Special laws
iv. Treatises and international conventions
v. Judicial decisions
vi. International customs such as lex situs, lex loci celebrationis and territoriality.
Part II: JURISDICTION (2)
1. Basis of exercise of jurisdiction
a. Jurisdiction over the person = acquired by voluntary appearance of a party and his
submission to authority.
Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired the moment he invokes
the aid of the court by filing a suit
Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired when he enters his appearance or
when he is served with the legal process within the state. When the defendant or
his lawyer appears in court, he gives consent to the forums exercise of
jurisdiction over him except if he appears for the purpose of protesting the
jurisdiction of the court.
i. William Gemperle vs Helen Shenker
Facts: Paul Schenker acting through his wife Helen Schenker filed a complaint against Willliam
Gemperle for the enforcement of Paul Schenkers allegedly initial subscription to the shares of
stock of the Phil. Swiss Trading Company and the exercise of his alleged preemptive rights to the
unissued original capital stock of said corporation. Believing that the suit was only for the
purpose of harassing and degrading his reputation, William Gemperle also filed a damage suit
against the Schenkers. The trial rendered in favor of Gemperle thus Helen Schenker appealed
alleging that Paul Schenker cannot be sued or joined as defendants because the trial court never
acquired jurisdiction over his person because he was outside of the Phil. thus he is beyond the
jurisdiction of our court.
Issue: Whether or not the court had acquired jurisdiction over the person of Paul Schenker
Held : Yes. It clearly appears from the answer of Mrs. Schenker that she is the representative and
atty in fact of her husband. In other words, Mrs. Shenker had authority to sue and had actually
sued on behalf of her husband thus, she was also empowered to represent him in suits filed
against him particularly in the instant civil case which is a consequence of the action brought by
her in his behalf.
b. Jurisdiction over the Property
Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject matter of the litigation results
either from the seizure of property under a legal process or from the institution
of legal proceedings wherein the courts power over the property is recognized
and made effective.

In rem jurisdiction = this means that the situs could bind the world and
not just specific persons. The basis of the exercise of jurisdiction is the
presence of property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum.
o Quasi in rem jurisdiction = affects only the interests of particular persons
on the thing
c. Jurisdiction over the Subject matter
is conferred by law and defined as the authority of a court to hear and decide
cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.
acquired through the allegations in the petition or complaint, read together with
the proper jurisdictional law, that will confer jurisdiction on the court
o

Idonah Perkins vs Roxas

FACTS: : Respondent Eugene Perkins filed a complaint against Benguet Consolidated Mining
Company for the recovery of dividends but it was withheld by the corporation because of the
adverse claims made by the petitioner Idonah Perkins and George Englehard. Respondent then
amended the complaint and included the herein petitioner. Petitioners contended that the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter because there was already a judgment of the
Supreme Court of New York declaring that she was the legal owner of the questioned shares and
the trial court cannot amend, annul, modify or reverse the same because it was already res
judicata.
ISSUE
case.

: Whether or not CFI can assume jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

HELD
: Yes, because jurisdiction over the subject matter is the nature of the cause
of action which is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court. In the case at
bar the respondents action calls for the adjudication of title to certain shares of stock of the
corporation and the granting of affirmative reliefs which fall within the general jurisdiction of the
CFI of Manila. Moreover, the instant case is one of enforcement of the New York Judgment. This is
an action recognized under the Civil Procedure and falls within the general jurisdiction of CFI.
WON the judge will uphold the validity of the New York Judgment is a question that goes to the
merits of the controversy. It does not affect in any way the power of CFI to acquire jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
2. Ways of Dealing with Conflicts Problem
The court may either dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction or on the ground of
forum non conveniens or assume jurisdiction or apply either foreign or forum law.
a. Dismiss the case
i. Heine vs New York Insurance Company
Facts: Plaintiffs were German nationals and residents of Germany. Defendant on the other hand
was a corporation or an entity organized in New York. Plaintiffs brought an action against the
defendants for the recovery of insurance claims on insurance contracts issued by the defendant
corporation. But the action was brought not in New York nor in Germany but in Oregon, USA.
Plaintiffs contends that the court should take cognizance of the case because anyway it has
acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter, over the plaintiffs (because plaintiffs filed a
pleading in Oregon court) and over the defendant (by means of service of summons having been
made on its residents or statutory agents in Oregon). Further, they contend that the court has no
discretion but to proceed with the case

Issue: WON the Oregon court may dismiss or refuse to take cognizance of the case
Held: YES. Even when the court has jurisdiction, it is still within the sound discretion of the court
to either assume jurisdiction or, as what occurred in the instant case, decline to do so as
circumstances suggest. The courts have repeatedly refused, in their discretion to entertain
jurisdiction of causes of action arising in a foreign jurisdiction where both parties are nonresidents of the forum. The courts may protect itself against a flood of litigation over contracts
made and to be performed in another country where parties and witnesses are non-residents of
the forum especially when there is no reason why liabilities of any cannot be enforced in the
country where the cause of action accrued.
b. Doctrine of Forum non convenience = a forum may resist imposition upon its
jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by law on the ground that the forum
is inconvenient or the ends of justice would be best served by trial in another forum
or the controversy may be more suitably tried elsewhere.
i. Fleumer vs Hix
Facts: Petitioner Fleumer was the special administrator of the estate of Edward Hix. When the
petitioner went to court to have the will of deceased Edward probated, it was refused by the
court. Petitioner contends that the deceased was a resident of Virginia and the will he executed
was within the formalities of Virginia law. In fact he presented the proof such law in a book found
in a national library and thereafter he let it certified by the director of our national library.
Issue: Whether or not proof of Virginia law was properly pleaded and proved
Held: No, because there was no showing that the book which he presented was an official
publication of West Virginia, nor there was an attestation by the officer having the custody of the
original and there was no proof that the law he presented was still enforced at the time alleged
will was executed.
Phil. court are not bound to take cognizance of a foreign law which must be proved as a fact and
in the absence of such proof it is considered as the same as ours.
Furthermore, the due execution of the will was not established because it was not acknowledged
by the testator in the presence of two competent witnesses or that these witnesses subscribed to
the will in the presence of the testator and of each other as the law of West Virginia seems to
require.
ii. PH Trust Company vs Bobonan
Facts: The will of C.O. Bohanan was admitted to probate by the CFI of Manila and for that
purpose he is considered as a citizen of Nevada USA. The PH Trust Co. named as executor was
ordered to enter upon the execution and performance of the trust. In the hearing for the
proposed project of partition Nevada law was not produced. Boahanans widow questioned the
validity of the will under PH Law which gave to a grandson 90,819.67 and of the shares of
stock in several mining companies which in effect deprived his compulsory heirs of their proper
legitime under PH Law. If Nevada law is to be apply, the will is valid since the same law allows a
testator to dispose all of his property by will.
Issue: (1) WON Nevada Law was properly pleaded and proved
(2) What law is to be applied, the foreign law or the law of the forum
Held:

(1) It was not properly pleaded and proved. At the time of the hearing of the project of
partition, the pertinent provision of the Nevada law was not introduced in evidence when it
was the executors duty to do so. The Law of Nevada being a foreign law, can only be
proved in our courts in the manner provided by our Rules. (Official publication or a copy
attested by officer having legal custody).
(2) Nevertheless, the court applied Nevada law since in a former motion by Magdalena
Bohanan, it was shown that she herself has introduced and relied upon the Nevada law
when she asked to withdraw her share. In addition, the children of the testator did not
dispute the Nevada law. Hence, given the peculiar circumstances of the case, the court
took judicial notice of the law of Nevada without proof of such law having been offered at
the hearing of the project of partition.
c. Assume Jurisdiction

When the court decides to assume jurisdiction of a conflicts problem, it may apply the
foreign law or the foreign law. However, since the basic law is the law of forum, it
should be applied whenever there is a good reason to do so.
d. When internal law is to be applied:
i. When a specific law of the forum states that internal law should apply
ii. When the proper foreign law has not been properly pleaded and proved.

3. The following actions may be resorted in case of failure to prove and plead the proper
foreign law
a. Dismiss the case for inability to establish cause of action
b. Assume that the foreign law of the same as the law of the forum (processual
presumption)
Apply the law of the forum when the case involves any of the exceptions to the application of the
proper foreign law as when the foreign law is

contrary to an important public policy of the forum

penal in nature
procedural in nature
purely fiscal and administrative in nature
application of the foreign law may work undeniable injustice to the
citizens of the forum

the case involves real or personal property situated in the forum

contrary to good morals
application might endanger the vital interest of the state