Private International Law negotiations, arbitration, or tribunals

Comes into plat when the issue before the court affects some fact or conciliation, or adjudication
event, or transaction that is so closely connected with a foreign by foreign tribunals; war
system of law as to necessitate recourse to that system
Part of the law of each state or nation which determined whether, in History
dealing with a legal situation, the law of some other state or nation
will be recognized, given effect, or applied A. Roman Law Origin
Law concerning the rights of persons within the territory and
dominion of one nation, by reason of acts, private or public, done 1. juris gentium
within the dominion of another nation was used during the early Roman Empire to denote a body of
laws developed by the praetor peregrinus to resolve disputes
Public and Private International Law Distinguished between foreigners or between foreigners and Romans
Public International Law Private International Law in contrast with jus civile which governed or applied to Romans
Except in matters involving Governs individuals in only
human rights, it deals with their private transactions 2. Bartolus- father of Conflict of laws
relationships among states which involve a foreign Formulated the Theory of the States
element (e.g., cutting Prompted by the creation of various city-states within Italy
across more than one governed by different laws
municipal jurisdiction) o Statuta realia- laws governing the immovable within the
Sources of law Custom, treaty, and general Derived mostly form State
principles of international law internal law of each state o Statuta personalia- laws that follow the person wherever
recognized by nations and and not from any he may go
juridical decisions and international law o statuta mixta- contracts, depending in where they were
teachings of most highly extraneous to municipal entered into by the different nationals
qualified publicists law [except the Hague 3. 16th century France
Convention on Conflict of Charles Dumuolin and Bertrand DArgentre developed the statute
Laws theiry for resolving conflicts between persons governed
National conflict rules 4. Netherlands
which refer to internal law A State is under no obligation to apply a foreign law unless
of each country or imposed by a treaty, courtesy, or expedience
international conflict rules The territorial principle- laws of the State operate only within its
which constitute territory
international conventions, 5. Jus commune
foreign case law, and Supranational law based on Roman law that became continental
commentaries interpreting European common law
these laws 6. Codification of law
subject States and internationally Individuals and When nations began codifying their national laws, conflict of
recognized organizations; corporations; private laws provisions were included in their civil codes
state to state or government transactions between Many adopted the French Civil code which created the
to government transactions individuals nationality law principle as determinant of an individuals
remedies Diplomatic protest, peaceful Provided by the laws of personal laws and the French Code was adopted by Many
means of settling disputes the state--- resort to nations including the Philippines, Spain, Belgium, and Romania
such as diplomatic courts or administrative
ARANETA- SESSION 1 1
 B. Modern development
The three modern schools of thought
1. Neostatutists- when two or more independent laws are
applicable to a conflict of laws problem, the method so
devised determines what law shall prevail
2. Internationalists- there should be a single body of law
that can solve problems involving problems with a foreign
element
3. Territorialists- laws of the State apply to persons and
things within the State
a. Only rights vested or acquired under a foreign
law are recognized in the forum but not the
foreign law itself
In the Philippines
o Only became siginificant after the independence
o The Spanish Code implemented in the Philippines until 1950
contained the conflict of laws principles of:
Nationality principle in Art. 15 (from the French)
Lex situs rule of Art 16. Par 1 (from Art. 10 of
Spanish Civil Code)
Lex loci contractus
Sources of Conflict of Laws
1. Codes and Statutes
a. The Constitution
b. The Civil Code
c. Special Statutes to govern cases involving foreign elements
including the Corporation Code, the General Banking Act, the
Insurance Code, Investment Incentives Act, Civil Aeronautics
Act
2. Treaties and International Conventions
a. Convention on International Civil Aviation
b. Convention of Unification of Certain Rules on International
Carriage by Air
c. Convention on the Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for
Marriage, and Registration of Marriages
d. Convention on Recognition of Foreign Judgment on Civil and
Commercial matters
e. Convention in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption
3. Treatises, Commentaries, and Studies of Learned Societies
a. Courts may resort to works of distinguished jurists as well as
studies of learned societies
ARANETA- SESSION 1
4. Judicial Decisions
II. JURISDICTION
A. DEFINITION
Hasegawa and Nippon Engineering Consultants vs Minoru Kitamura
(2007)
The Supreme Court in this case discussed the 3 different aspects of Conflict
of Law: Jurisdiction; Choice of Law; enforcement of resulting Judgment
Facts:
1. Petitioner Nippon Engineering entered into an Independent
Contractor Agreement with respondent Kitamura, a Japanese
national residing in the Philippines.
a. Nippon assigned the respondent to work as the project
manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road Project in the
Philippines as Nippon into a consultancy contract with the
PH.
2. When the STAR project was about to be completed, DPWH engaged
with the services of Nippon once again. Respondent Kitamura was
detailed as the project manager once again.
3. However, Hasegawa, the manager of Nippon, informed respondent
Kitamura that they no longer had the intention of renewing his
contract and that his services will be only up to the completion of the
STAR Project.
4. The Action: When negotiations failed, the respondent Kitamura was
threatened with his impending unemployment. He then instituted an
action with the RTC of Lipa City for specific performance and
damages against Nippon.
a. Motion to dismiss by Nippon: the court had no
jurisdiction because the ICA had been perfected in Japan
and between Japanese Nationals.
i. That the improper pre-termination of the
respondent could only be heard and ventilated in the
courts of Japan following the principles of lex loci
celebrationis and lex contractus
5. Decision of the trial court: deny the motion to dismiss and ruled
that the matter connected with the performance of contracts are
regulated bythe law prevailing at the place of performance.
6. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC:
2
 a. The CA ruled, among others, that the principle of lex loci
celebrationis was not applicable to the case, because
nowhere in the pleadings was the validity of the written
agreement put in issue. The CA thus declared that the trial
court was correct in
b. applying instead the principle of lex loci solutionis
7. hence, the present action by the petitioner arguing that:
a. RTC of Lipa City is an inconvenient forum, petitioners
question its jurisdiction to hear and resolve the civil case for
specific performance and damages filed by the respondent.
b. The ICA subject of the litigation was entered into and
perfected in Tokyo, Japan, by Japanese nationals, and
written wholly in the Japanese language. Thus, petitioners
posit that local courts have no substantial relationship to the
parties following the [state of the] most significant
relationship rule in Private International Law.
Issue: Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the present case?
Ruling: Yes.
in the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are
involved: 1. Jurisdiction or where can or should litigation be initiated?
2. choice of law or which law should the court apply; and
3. recognition and enforcement of judgments or where can the resulting
judgemetn be enforced.
Note that Jurisdiction and Choice of Law are different concepts:
The question of whether the law of a state can be applied to a transaction is
different from the question of whether the courts of that state have
jurisdiction to enter a judgment.
The power to exercise jurisdiction does not automatically give a
state constitutional authority to apply forum law
Jurisdiction Choice of Law
Jurisdiction considers whether it is choice of law asks the further
fair to cause a defendant to travel to question whether the application of a
this state substantive law which will determine
the merits of the case is fair to both
parties
ARANETA- SESSION 1
As a first step, the issue of jurisdiction must first be determined.
for a court to validly exercise its power to adjudicate a controversy,
it must have:
1. jurisdiction over the plaintiff or the petitioner,
2. over the defendant or the respondent,
3. over the subject matter,
4. over the issues of the case and,
5. in cases involving property, over the res or the thing which is the
subject of the litigation
In the present case the petitioners are mainly questioning the
jurisdiction of our courts with the subject matter. How does one
determine jurisdiction over the subject matter?
(1) it is conferred by the sovereign authority which establishes and
organizes the court. It is given only by law and in the manner
prescribed by law.
(2) It is further determined by the allegations of the complaint
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the
claims asserted therein
However, in the present case, the petitioners are already raising
questions in relation to choice of law which is the second aspect
after the determination of jurisdiction. Hence, the choice-of-law
rules are inapplicable yet.
Controlling issue: does the RTC have jurisdiction over the case?
Yes.
It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a
foreign element, is brought before a court or administrative agency,
there are three alternatives open to the latter in disposing of it:
(1) dismiss the case, either because of lack of jurisdiction or refusal to
assume jurisdiction over the case;
(2) assume jurisdiction over the case and apply the internal law of the
forum; or
(3) assume jurisdiction over the case and take into account or apply the law
of some other State or States.
The courts power to hear cases and controversies is derived from the
Constitution and the laws. While it may choose to recognize laws of foreign
3
nations, the court is not limited by foreign sovereign law short of treaties or
other formal agreements, even in matters regarding rights provided by
foreign sovereigns.

May the petitioner invoke the rule of forum non conveniens?

No.

First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because Section 1, Rule
16 of the Rules of Court does not include it as a ground.

Second, whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of

the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court

And in the present case,

RTC decided to assume jurisdiction. Third, the propriety of

dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual
determination; hence, this conflicts principle is more properly
considered a matter of defense

Accordingly, since the RTC is vested by law with the power to entertain and
hear the civil case filed by respondent and the grounds raised by petitioners
to assail that jurisdiction are inappropriate, the trial and appellate courts
correctly denied the petitioners motion to dismiss.

ARANETA- SESSION 1 4
B. TYPES OF JUDICIAL JURISDICTION AND BASES FOR ITS
EXERCISE
De Joya vs Judge Marquez of Manila RTC, People of the Philippines
and the Secretary of Justice
Facts:
1. a warrant of arrest was issued by the respondent judge against
petitioner Chester De Joya for syndicated Estafa made pursuant to
Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
a. The judge issued the same as he found probable cause
against the same
2. Hence. The petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to nullify
and set aside the warrant of arrest.
Aside from the issue of the finding of probable cause, may the petitioner
seek the present relief from the Court?
Ruling: No. petitioner is not entitled to seek relief from this Court nor from
the trial court as he continuously refuses to surrender and submit to the
courts jurisdiction
Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction and how the court acquires such
jurisdiction:
a. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner: This is acquired
by the filing of the complaint, petition or initiatory pleading
before the court by the plaintiff or petitioner.
b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent: This is
acquired by the voluntary appearance or submission by the
defendant or respondent to the court or by coercive process
issued by the court to him, generally by the service of
summons.
c. Jurisdiction over the subject matter: This is conferred by
law and, unlike jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be
conferred on the court by the voluntary act or agreement of
the parties.
d. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: This is determined
and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the
parties, or by their agreement in a pretrial order or
stipulation, or, at times by their implied consent as by the
ARANETA- SESSION 1
failure of a party to object to evidence on an issue not
covered by the pleadings, as provided in Sec. 5, Rule 10.
e. Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or thing which is
the subject of the litigation). This is acquired by the actual or
constructive seizure by the court of the thing in question,
thus placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or
garnishment; or by provision of law which recognizes in the
court the power to deal with the property or subject matter
within its territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration
proceedings or suits involving civil status or real property in
the Philippines of a nonresident defendant.
Hence,
1. When the action involves the personal status of the plaintiff or property in
the Philippines in which the defendant claims an interest,
the court acquires jurisdiction to try the case, even if it has not
acquired jurisdiction over the person of a nonresident defendant, as
long as it has jurisdiction over the res. In such cases, the service of
summons by publication and notice to the defendant is merely to
comply with due process requirements
2. Under Sec. 133 of the Corporation Code, while a foreign corporation doing
business in the Philippines without a license cannot sue or intervene in any
action here, it may be sued or proceeded against before our courts or
administrative
tribunals
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
IDONAH SLADE PERKINS vs Mamerto Roxas
Facts:
1. Eugene Perkins Filed a complaint in the CFi of Manila against the
Benguet Consolidated Mining company for declared dividends
registered and payable in his name.
a. However, he was ordered to include in his complaint as
party defendants the petitioner Idonah Perkins his wife, and
Engelhard who were asserting adverse interests in relation
5
 to the shares of stock subject of the case. hence, petitioner
was impleaded as a defendant
b. Summons by publication were served upon the non-resident
defendants, petitioner Idonah and Engelhard.
2. Petitioner set up a cross complaint in which she sets up a judgment
by the New York Supreme Court obtained by her against respondent
Eugene Perkins. The said decisions declared her to be the sole legal
owner of of the shares of stock in relation to the declared dividends
by the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company.
a. The respondent set up several defenses to the enforcement
of the judgment by the foreign court.
b. She then filed a demurrer thereto on the ground that the
court has no jurisdiction to the subject of the action because
the alleged judgment of the SC of NY is res judicata in all
aspects of the present action.
3. The CFI of Manila overruled the demurrer of the petitioner. Hence
the present action with the SC alleging that:
a. the respondent judge is about to and will render judgment
in the abovementioned case disregarding the constitutional
rights of this petitioner; contrary to and annulling the final,
subsisting, valid judgment rendered and entered in this
petitioner's favor by the courts of the State of New York, ...
which decision is res judicata on all the questions
constituting the subject matter of civil case No. 53317, of
the Court of First Instance of Manila; and which New York
judgment the Court of First Instance of Manila is without
jurisdiction to annul, amend, reverse, or modify in any
respect whatsoever"
Issue: in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of New York, does the
CFI of Manila, the local court, has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
action in the said case?
What is jurisdiction over the subject matter?
subject matter is meant the nature of the cause of action and of the
relief sought, and this is conferred by the sovereign authority which
organizes the court, and is to be sought for in general nature of its
powers, or in authority specially conferred.
A. Does the Court have jurisdiction over the the subject matter of the
respondents complaint?
Ruling: Yes.
ARANETA- SESSION 1
The respondent's action, calls for the adjudication of title to certain shares of
stock of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, and the granting of
affirmative reliefs, which fall within the general jurisdiction of the Court of
First Instance of Manila.
B. Does the Court have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
petitioners cross complaint?
Ruling: Yes.
the Court of First Instance of Manila is empowered to adjudicate the several
demands contained in petitioner's crosscomplaint. The crosscomplaint sets
up a judgment allegedly recovered by Idonah Slade Perkins against Eugene
Arthur Perkins in the Supreme Court of New York
Idonah Slade Perkins in her crosscomplaint brought suit against Eugene
Arthur Perkins and the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company upon the
alleged judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York and asked
the court below to render judgment enforcing that New York judgment, and
to issue execution thereon. This is a form of action recognized by section 309
of the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 47, Rule 39, Rules of Court) and
which falls within the general jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, to adjudicate, settled and determine.
However, the question on whether or not he respondent judge in the course
of the proceedings will give validity and efficacy to the New York judgment
set up by the petitioner in her crosscomplaint is a question that goes to the
merits of the controversy and relates to the rights of the parties as between
each other, and not to the jurisdiction or power of the court. The test of
jurisdiction is whether or not the tribunal has power to enter upon the
inquiry, not whether its conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong. If its
decision is erroneous, its judgment case be reversed on appeal; but its
determination of the question, which the petitioner here anticipates and
seeks to prevent, is the exercise by that court and the rightful exercise
of its jurisdiction.
Reyes vs Diaz
Jurisdiction over the subjectmatter is the power to hear and determine cases
of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong (C. J. S., p.
6
36) and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court
and defines its powers.
The question, therefore, of whether a court has jurisdiction over the subject-
matter, calls for interpretation and application of the law of jurisdiction which
distributes the judicial power among the different courts in the Philippines,
and since the ruling on the matter is of farreaching consequences, affecting,
as it may, the very life and structure of our judicial system, the law has
deemed it wise to place the power and authority to act thereon in the
highest court of the land.
In the instant, case, there is no such question of jurisdiction as above
described. Both parties agree that if the due filing of the protestant's
certificate of candidacy is proven, the trial court has no jurisdiction except to
dismiss the case. There is, therefore, no question between the parties as to
what the jurisdiction of the trial court is according to law in either case. The
real question between them is one of fact whether or not the protestant's
certificate of candidacy has been duly filed. And not the until this fact is
proved can the question of jurisdiction be determined.
3. jurisdiction over the Person (plaintiff and Defendant)
Pantaleon vs Asuncion
Facts:
1. Vicenta Pantaleon instituted an action in the CFI of Nueva Ecija
against Asuncion for a sum of money. For the service of the
summons, it would appear that:
i. The summons originally issued was returned by the
Sheriff unserved with the statement that Asuncion
was already residing on Caloocan rizan.
ii. An alias summons was issued but the same
remained unserved with the information that
Asuncion already left the address and that after
diligent efforts, Asuncion was not located
iii. The summons then were served through publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in Nueva Ecija.
2. Asuncion failed to answer the complaint and was declared in default.
Consequently, a decision was rendered against Asuncion.
3. 46 days after the judgment, the defendant then filed a petitioner
for relief from the judgment on the ground of mistake and excusable
negligence. In his affidavit, he stated that:
ARANETA- SESSION 1
a. summons were not served to him according to the
rules. he stated that he presently resides in Quezon city and
that he received the notification in his old residence in Nueva
Ecija.
i. That when he learned of the judgment, he
immediately went to the miunicipality to
claim the said notice much to his surprise
because he was never summoned for the
hearing
ii. That had the copy of the summons and of the
order for its publication been sent to him by
mail, as provided in Rule 7, section 21, of the
Rules of Court said summons and order would
have reached him, "as the judgment herein
had"; and that his failure to appear before the
court is excusable it being due to the mistake
of the authorities concerned in not complying
with the provisions of said section.
4. Decision of the CFI: the CFI denied the petitioner for relief.
5. Hence, the present appeal by Asuncion maintaining that the
summons were not served in accordance with the rules of court.
a. Contrary to the requirement of Rule 7 Section 21 of the
ROC, which provided that the copy of the summons and the
order for the publication thereof were not deposited in the
post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by
ordinary mail to his last known address
6. Argument of the plaintiff Reyes is that the provision
applicable in the present case is Section 16 Rule 7 of the
Rules of Court applicable to unknown owner, or the like, or
whenever the address of a defendant is unknown and
cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, publication may
be done.
a. And that Section 21 which the defedndant invokes
only applies to extraterritorial service of summons
(when the defendant does not reside in the
Philippines or not found in the Philippines.
Issue: Was the summons properly served to the effect that the jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant was acquired by the court?
Ruling: No.
7
Said section 21, however, is unqualified. It prescribes the "proof of service
by publication", regardless of whether the defendant is a resident of the
Philippines or not. Section 16 must be read in relation to section 21, which
complements it. Then, too, we conceive of no reason, and plaintiff has
suggested none, why copy of the summons and of the order for its
publication should be mailed to nonresident defendants, but not to resident
defendants. We can not even say that defendant herein, who, according to
the return of the Sheriff of Nueva Ecija, was reportedly residing in Rizal
where he, in fact (San Francisco del Monte and Quezon City used to be part
of Rizal), was residing could reasonably be expected to read the summons
published in a newspaper said to be a general circulation in Nueva Ecija.
Considering that strict compliance with the terms of the statute is necessary
to confer jurisdiction through service by publication, the conclusion is
inescapable that the lower court had no authority whatsoever to issue the
order of July 12, 1955, declaring the defendant in default and to render the
decision of September 8, 1955, and that both are null and void ad initio.
Apart from the foregoing, it is a wellsettled principle of Constitutional Law
that, in an action strictly in personam, like the one at bar, personal service of
summons, within the forum, is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant, who does not voluntarily submit himself to the
authority of the court. In other words, summons by publication cannot
consistently with the due process clause in the Bill of Rights confer upon
the court jurisdiction over said defendant.
William Gemperle vs Helen Schenker and Paul Schenker
Facts:
1. William Gemperle filed an action against Helen Schenker and Paul
Schenker with the CFI of Rizal.
a. Admittedly Paul Schenker and Helen Schenker are Swiss
citizens. Paul resides in Switzerland. Helen is in the
Philippines.
b. SUMMONS WERE NOT ACTUALLY SUMMONED TO
PAUL, ALTHOUGH THE SUMMONS ADDRESSED TO
HIM AND MRS. SCHENKER WERE SERVED
PERSONALLY TO HER IN THE PH.
c. The action was based on a publication which was alleged to
be defamatory and derogatory of Gemperles name in
relation to a previous civil case filed by the Schenkers
ARANETA- SESSION 1
enforcing the exercise of their rights on certain shares of
stock in Philippines- Swiss Trading.
2. The CFI of Rizal Dismissed the case for:
a. lack of jurisdiction over the person of Paul Schenker and for
want of cause of action against his wife, co-defendant Helen.
3. Hence the present action Gemperle with the Supreme Court arguing
that:
a. Jurisdiction over the persons of Paul and Helen were
acquired by voluntary appearance asking for relief
when Helen made an answer and filed a counterclaim
against the plaintiff
b. That there is a waiver of the defense of lack of
jurisdiction over persons
Does the Court have jurisdiction over the persons of the defedndants?
Ruling: Yes.
Over the person of Helen: by the counterclaim set up by her.
Over the person of Paul:
lower court had acquired jurisdiction over said defendant, through
service of the summons addressed to him upon Mrs. Schenker, it
appearing from said answer that she is the representative and
attorneyinfact of her husband aforementioned civil case No. Q2796,
which apparently was filed at her behest, in her aforementioned
representative capacity.
In other words, Mrs. Schenker had authority to sue, and had
actually sued on behalf of her husband, so that she was, also,
empowered to represent him in suits filed against him, particularly
in a case, like the of the one at bar, which is consequence of the
action brought by her on his behalf.
Sequito vs Letrondo
Facts:
1. Sequito filed a complaint before the CFI of Leyte for Reconveyance
of a property located in Dagami Leyte.
2. Facts of the service of summons:
8
 a. Summons were served by Borja, a police sergeant instead
of a sheriff of the court
b. The proof of the substituted service was also not made
under oath
c. It was served upon the daughter of the defendant who was
then 12 years old, a fourth graed student
3. The defendant failed to file his answer on the prescribed period,
hence, he was declared in default upon motion of the plaintiff
4. The CFI judge rendered a decision consequently in favour of the
plaintiff.
5. The defendant then fied a motion for new trial alleging that he did
not receive the summons and came to know about the case when he
received a copy of the decision of the court.
a. He also presented a deed of sale of the land subject of the
case as a defense for the action filed by the petitioner
6. The trial court denied the motion for new trial.
7. Hence, the present action by defendant Letrondo

Issue: whether or not there had been a valid substituted service of summons
in accordance with Section 8, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court to bind the
defendant?

Ruling: None.

1. irregularity in the service of summons contrary to the requirements

of the Rules of Court
a. The record shows that the service of the summons was
irregular. It was served by one police sergeant, Pacifico
Borja, who was not a sheriff or a court officer, and who was
not authorized by the court to deliver the summons. This
violates the provisions of Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court.
b. The proof of service is also not under oath as required by
Section 20 of said rule.
2. No valid substituted service of summons:
a. still there was no valid substituted service because she,
being only 12 years of age and a grade four pupil, could not
have appreciated the importance of the paper delivered to
her.
b. We can not say with certainty that the daughter was at the
time of a suitable age and discretion to be entrusted with so
important a document as a court summons (Section 8, Rule
7, Rules of Court).

ARANETA- SESSION 1 9