Rationes Decidendi

4. People v. Wong Cheng (1922) I. Jurisdiction 1. Lotus Case 2. Asaali v. Commissioner (1968) It is a well-settled doctrine of International Law that goes back to Chief Justice Marshalls opinion in Church v. Hubbart, an 1804 decision, that a state has the right to protect itself and its revenues, a right not limited to its own territory but extending to high seas. In the language of Chief Justice Marshall: The authority of a nation within its own territory is absolute and exclusive. The seizure of a vessel within the range of its cannon by a foreign force is an invasion of that territory, and is a hostile act which is its duty to repel. But its power to secure itself from injury may certainly be exercised beyond the limits of its territory. 3. US v. Look Chaw (1910) Although the mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in these Islands aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts of this country, on account of such vessel being considered as an extension of its own nationality, the same rule does not apply when the article, whose use is prohibited within the Philippine Islands, in the present case a can of opium, is landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus committing an open violation of the laws of the land, with respect to which, as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime, only the court established in the said place itself has competent, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty. French Rule: Matters happening on board a merchant ship which do not concern the tranquillity of the port or persons foreign to the crew are justiciable only by the courts of the country to which the vessel belongs. English Rule: The United States has adhered consistently to the view that when a merchant vessel enters a foreign port it is subject to the jurisdiction of the local authorities, unless the local sovereignty has by act of acquiescence or through treaty arrangements consented to waive a portion of such jurisdiction. 6. Perkins v. Dizon (1939) Jurisdiction over the subject-matter: acquired by concession of the sovereign authority which organizes a court and determines the nature and 1 We have seen that the mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held by this court not triable by our courts, because it being the primary object of our Opium Law to protect the inhabitants of the Philippines against the disastrous effects entailed by the use of its drug, its mere possession in such a ship, without being used in the territory, does not bring about in the said territory those effects that our statute contemplates avoiding. Hence such a mere possession is not considered a disturbance of the public order. But to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of public order here established, because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory. 5. US v. Bull (1910)

Dean Emerson B. Aquende | Private International Law

Rationes Decidendi
extent of its powers in general and thus fixes its jurisdiction with reference to actions which it may entertain and the relief it may grant. Jurisdiction over the persons of the parties: acquired by their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority, or by coercive power of legal process exerted over their persons. Pennoyer v. Neff: jurisdiction over the person cannot be acquired by publication and notice is no longer open to question. Reason: may be found in a recognized principle of public law to the effect that no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory. In actions in rem and quasi in rem in connection with property located in the Philippines: the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, and its jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident is non-essential xxx and if the law requires in such case that the summons upon the defendant be served by publication, it is merely to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process. Reason: [based] upon the principle that a State, through its tribunals, may subject property situated within its limits owned by non-residents to the payment of the demand of its own citizens against them; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no respect infringes upon the sovereignty of the State where the owners are domiciled. 7. Gemperle v. Schenker (1967) Syllabus; Acquisition of jurisdiction upon nonresident defendant through service of summons upon attorney-in-fact: Where a Swiss citizen, residing in Switzerland, was served with summons through his wife, who was residing here and who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case, which was apparently filed, in the Rizal CFI, at her behest in her aforementioned capacity, the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the nonresident husband by means of the said service of summons. 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 one at bar, which is a consequence of the action brought by her on his behalf. II. Choice of Law 8. Bank of America v. CA (2003) The doctrine of forum non conveniens should not be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include said doctrine as a ground. While it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after the vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require the courts desistance; and that the propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non conveniens requires factual determination, hence it is more properly considered a matter of defense. 9. Hasegawa v. Kitamura (2007) Analytically, jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause the defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties. 2

Dean Emerson B. Aquende | Private International Law

Rationes Decidendi
The power to exercise jurisdiction does not automatically give a state the constitutional authority to apply forum law. While jurisdiction and choice of the lex fori will often coincide, the minimum contacts for one do not always provide the necessary significant contacts for the other. 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. Jurisdiction over the subject matter: 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. 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. To succeed in its motion for the dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim, the movant must show that the court or tribunal cannot act on the matter submitted to it because no law grants it the power to adjudicate the claims. Lex loci celebrationis relates to the law of the place of the ceremony or the law of the place where a contract is made. Lex contractus/Lex loci contractus means the law of the place where a contract is executed or to be performed. It controls the nature, construction, and validity of the contract and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the law intended by them either expressly or impliedly. State of the most significant relationship rule: to ascertain what state law to apply to a dispute, the court should determine which state has the most substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties. Petitioners premature invocation of choice-oflaw rules is exposed by the fact that they have not yet pointed out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Before determining which law should apply, first there should exist a conflict of laws situation requiring the application of the conflict of laws rules. 10. Fluemer v. Hix (1930) The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. The courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to take American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. 11. Phil. Trust Co. v. Bohanan (1960) The law of Nevada, being a foreign law can only be proved in our courts in the form and manner provided for by our Rules (Rule 132/Sec. 24). III. Proof and Application of Foreign Law 12. In re: Estate of Johnson (1918) Nevertheless, even supposing that the trial court may have erred in taking judicial notice of the law of Illinois on the point in question, such error is not now available to the petitioner, first, because the petition does not state any fact from which it would appear that the law of Illinois is different from what the court found, and, secondly, because the assignment of error and argument for the appellant in this court raises no question based on such supposed error. 13. Miciano v. Brimo (1924)

Dean Emerson B. Aquende | Private International Law

Rationes Decidendi
Syllabus; Succession; Conditional Legacy; Condition Contrary to Law: If the condition imposed upon the legatee is that he respect the testators order that his property be distributed in accordance with the laws of the Philippines and not in accordance with the laws of his nation, said condition is illegal because, according to article 10 (now article 16) of the Civil Code, said laws govern his testamentary disposition, and, being illegal, shall be considered unwritten, thus making the institution unconditional. 14. Suntay v. Suntay (1954) Application of the rule on proof of foreign law 15. Phil. Trust Co. v. Bohanan (1960) The law of Nevada, being a foreign law can only be proved in our courts in the form and manner provided for by our Rules (Rule 132/Sec. 24). Rule 132, Sec. 24: 16. Collector of Internal Revenue v. Fisher (1961) Doctrine of Processual Presumption: In the absence of proof, the Court is justified in indulging in what Wharton calls processual presumption, in presuming that the law of England on the matter is the same as our law. Syllabus; Proof of foreign laws: The provisions of the Rules of Court on proof of foreign laws do not exclude the presentation of other competent evidence to prove the existence of a foreign law. The testimony of a lawyer, practising in California, together with a quotation from a publication of Bancroft-Whitney, is sufficient to prove the certain provisions of the California Internal Revenue Code. (The quotation was offered in evidence as Exhibit V-2.) Willamette Iron v. Muzzal (61 Phil. 471): In [this] case, we considered the testimony of an attorneyat-law of San Francisco, California who quoted verbatim a section of the California Civil Code and who stated that the same was in force at the time the obligations were contracted, as sufficient evidence to establish the existence of said law. 17. PCIB v. Escolin (1974) On Estoppel Relative precisely to the question of how much of Mrs. Hodges' share of the conjugal partnership properties may be considered as her estate, the parties are in disagreement as to how Article 16 of the Civil Code should be applied. On the one hand, petitioner claims that inasmuch as Mrs. Hodges was a resident of the Philippines at the time of her death, under said Article 16, construed in relation to the pertinent laws of Texas and the principle of renvoi, what should be applied here should be the rules of succession under the Civil Code of the Philippines, and, therefore, her estate could consist of no more than one-fourth of the said conjugal properties, the other fourth being, as already explained, the legitime of her husband (Art. 900, Civil Code) which she could not have disposed of nor burdened with any condition (Art. 872, Civil Code). On the other hand, respondent Magno denies that Mrs. Hodges died a resident of the Philippines, since allegedly she never changed nor intended to change her original residence of birth in Texas, United States of America, and contends that, anyway, regardless of the question of her residence, she being indisputably a citizen of Texas, under said Article 16 of the Civil Code, the distribution of her estate is subject to the laws of said State which, according to her, do not 4

Dean Emerson B. Aquende | Private International Law

Rationes Decidendi
provide for any legitime, hence, the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges are entitled to the remainder of the whole of her share of the conjugal partnership properties consisting of onehalf thereof. it is now beyond controversy for all future purposes of these proceedings that whatever be the provisions actually of the laws of Texas applicable hereto, the estate of Mrs. Hodges is at least, one-fourth of the conjugal estate of the spouses; the existence and effects of foreign laws being questions of fact, and it being the position now of PCIB that the estate of Mrs. Hodges, pursuant to the laws of Texas, should only be one-fourth of the conjugal estate, such contention constitutes an admission of fact, and consequently, it would be in estoppel in any further proceedings in these cases to claim that said estate could be less, irrespective of what might be proven later to be actually the provisions of the applicable laws of Texas Syllabus: When, with respect to certain aspects of the foreign laws concerned, the parties in a given case do not have any controversy or are more or less in agreement, the Court may take it for granted for the purposes of the particular case before it that the said laws are as such virtual agreement indicates, without the need of requiring the presentation of what otherwise would be competent evidence on the point. Syllabus: PCIBs representations in regard to the laws of Texas virtually constitute admissions of fact which the other parties and the court are being made to rely and act upon. PCIB is not permitted to contradict them or subsequently take a position contradictory to or inconsistent with them. 18. Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa (1991) Note: Compare with CIR v. Fisher (16). Dean Emerson B. Aquende | Private International Law 5 It is the postulate advanced by petitioners that for the said marriages to be valid in this country, it should have been shown that they were valid by the laws of China wherein the same were contracted. There being none, petitioners conclude that the aforesaid marriages cannot be considered valid. After a careful consideration of petitioners argument, We find that it cannot be sustained. In Miciano v. Brimo, etc., this Court held that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines. In the case at bar, there being no proof of Chinese law relating to marriage, there arises the presumption that it is the same as that of Philippine law. Bearing in mind the processual presumption enunciated in Miciano and other cases, he who asserts that the marriage is not valid under our law bears the burden of proof to present the foreign law. 19. Zalamea v. CA (1993) Foreign laws do not prove themselves nor can the courts take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved [in accordance with the rules of court (Rule 132/Sec. 24)]. Respondent TWA relied solely on the statement of its customer service agent, in her deposition, that the Code of Federal Regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Board allows overbooking. Aside from said statement, no official publication of said code was presented as evidence. Thus, respondent courts finding that overbooking is specifically allowed by the US Code of Federal Regulations has no basis in fact.

Rationes Decidendi
20. Pakistan International Airlines v. Ople (1990) When the relationship between the parties is much affected by public interest, the otherwise applicable Philippine laws and regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties agreeing upon some other law to govern their relationship. 21. Lorenzo v. Posadas (1937) IV. The Problem of Characterization 22. Gibbs v. Govt of the Philippines (1933) A Californian wife dies. Her Californian husband claims the entire properties acquired by the spouses during their marriage as his alone by accretion, following the California law on property relations of spouses. Under Philippine law, however, this is a problem in succession, so that inheritance taxes should be paid by the husband as the lands in question were located in the Philippines. The Supreme Court held that the properties inherited by the husband were subject to inheritance taxes, categorizing the problem as one of the succession. (Digest from Sempio-Diy) Note: The Court based its decision on Cal. Jur.: In accord with the rule that real property is subject to the lex rei sitae, the respective rights of the husband and wife in such property, in the absence of an antenuptial contract, are determined by the law of the place where the property is situated, irrespective of the domicile of the parties or of the place where the marriage was celebrated. 23. Cadalin v. POEA (1994) On Characterization Dean Emerson B. Aquende | Private International Law 6 As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such as service of process, joinder of actions, and so forth, are governed by the laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive law. A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as a procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law. However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive becomes irrelevant when the country of the forum has a borrowing statute. Said statute has the practical effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance. A borrowing statute directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law. While there are several kinds of borrowing statutes, one form provides that an action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued, will not be enforced in the forum even though the local statute has not run against it. Sec. 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said Section provides: If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippine Islands. Section 48 has not been repealed or amended by the Civil Code of the Philippines. Article 2270 of said Code repealed only those provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as to which were inconsistent with it. There is no provision in the Civil Code of the Philippines which is inconsistent with or contradictory to Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Rationes Decidendi
However, the courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forums public policy. To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question would contravene the public policy on the protection of labor. On Contractual Stipulations Parties to a contract may select the law by which it is to be governed, and instead of adopting the entire mass of the foreign law, the parties may just agree that specific provisions of a foreign statute shall be deemed incorporated into their contract as a set of terms. A basic policy of contract is to protect the expectation of the parties. Such party expectation is protected by giving effect to the parties own choice of the applicable law. The choice of law must, however, bear some relationship to the parties or their transaction. 24. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA (1998) On Choice of Forum Plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, "vex", "harass", or "oppress" the defendant, e.g. by inflicting upon him needless expense or disturbance. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. Paramount is the private interest of the litigant. Enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained is quite obvious. Relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial are equally important. On Characterization Before a choice [of law] can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what Dean Emerson B. Aquende | Private International Law 7 Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual situation, event, or operative fact. An essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a "test" or "connecting factor" or "point of contact". Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as property right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration, the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing. Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the possible test for the determination of the applicable law. These "test factors" or "points of contact" or "connecting factors" could be any of the following: (1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin; (2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation; (3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved; (4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts; category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is known as "characterization", or the "doctrine of qualification". It is the "process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule." The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law.

Rationes Decidendi
(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised; (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 the law of the forum is particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, matters of "procedure" not going to the substance of the claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and (8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment.

Dean Emerson B. Aquende | Private International Law