Lets make sense of all these friggin cases.

xxxx

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:

a. LACK OF JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION Where can or should litigation be initiated?

For a court to validly exercise its power to adjudicate a controversy, it must have:

A. JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAINTIFF OR THE PETITIONER

B. JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT OR THE RESPONDENT

Acquiring jd over def if def is fc doing business in the PH

Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines,
service may be made: (1) on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, (2) if there is no such resident
agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect; or (3) on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
If the foreign corporation has designated an agent to receive summons, the designation is exclusive, and service of summons is
without force and gives the court no jurisdiction unless made upon him. 11

Where the corporation has no such agent, service shall be made on the government official designated by law, to wit: (a) the Insurance
Commissioner in the case of a foreign insurance company; (b) the Superintendent of Banks, in the case of a foreign banking
corporation; and (c) the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the case of other foreign corporations duly licensed to do business in
the Philippines. Whenever service of process is so made, the government office or official served shall transmit by mail a copy of the
summons or other legal proccess to the corporation at its home or principal office. The sending of such copy is a necessary part of the
service. 12

Acquiring jd over domiciliary administrator (say if da in US and ancil. admin in PH)

Courts can acquire jurisdiction over the person of the domiciliary administrator by service of summons or voluntary appearance. In this
case, da voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the lower court by entering its appearance through counsel and filing a
petition for relief from a previous order.

c. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding 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]

D. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

Jurisdiction over the PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTER IN CONTROVERSY
D1. In rem subject matter regardless of person interest; affecting interests of all persons in a thing

i. Here, Purpose is to affect the interest of all persons in a thing. the State may render thru its courts a valid judgment
as long as it has jd over the THING even though it may not have personal jd over persons whose interests are
affected
ii. i.e. land registrations and admiralty cases- bind world insofar as land and vessel concerned

D2. Quasi in rem affect the interest of a particular persons in a thing ;

- court may render valid jd when it has jud over PERSONS whose interests are affected
- foreclosure of mortgage, partition of land or quieting of title

D3 In personam purpose is to impose personal liability on anyone

 -In an action in personam , service by publication on resident defendants, who are personally within the state and can be
found therein is not "due process of law", and a statute allowing it is unconstitutional.

-Since petitioner could not be personally served with summons despite diligent efforts to locate his whereabouts, respondent
sought and was granted leave of court to effect service of summons upon him by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation. Thus, petitioner was properly served with summons by publication. Petitioner invokes the distinction between an
action in rem and an action in personam and claims that substituted service may be availed of only in an action in rem.
Petitioner is wrong. The in rem/in personam distinction was significant under the old rule because it was silent as to the kind
of action to which the rule was applicable.[10] Because of this silence, the Court limited the application of the old rule to in
rem actions only.[11]
This has been changed. The present rule expressly states that it applies [i]n any action where the defendant is designated as
an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry.
Thus, it now applies to any action, whether in personam, in rem or quasi in rem.

If by publication:
Regarding the matter of the affidavit of service, the relevant portion of Section 19, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court simply speaks
of the following:
an affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post office, postage
prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to his last known address.
Service of summons by publication is proved by the affidavit of the printer, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the editor,
business or advertising manager of the newspaper which published the summons. The service of summons by publication is
complemented by service of summons by registered mail to the defendants last known address. This complementary service
is evidenced by an affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post office,
postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to his last known address.

The rules, however, do not require that the affidavit of complementary service be executed by the clerk of court. While the
trial court ordinarily does the mailing of copies of its orders and processes, the duty to make the complementary service by
registered mail is imposed on the party who resorts to service by publication.

Venue vs jurisdiction:

Venue and jurisdiction are entirely distinct matters. Jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court which
otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of an action; but the venue of an action as fixed by statute may be
changed by the consent of the parties and an objection that the plaintiff brought his suit in the wrong county may be waived by the
failure of the defendant to make a timely objection. In either case, the court may render a valid judgment. Rules as to jurisdiction
can never be left to the consent or agreement of the parties, whether or not a prohibition exists against their alteration.

VENUE:

An action for damages being a personal action,[17]venue is determined pursuant to Rule 4, section 2 of the Rules of Court,
to wit:

Venue of personal actions.All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident
defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff

NOTE: A corporation has no residence in the same sense in which this term is applied to a natural person. But for
practical purposes, a corporation is in a metaphysical sense a resident of the place where its principal office is
located as stated in the articles of incorporation.

b. REFUSAL TO ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS
-The doctrine of forum non conveniens can never apply if there is absence of jurisdiction or mistake of venue.

-If court is authorized to assume jurisdiction, it may do so provided that the following requisites are met:
 1) That the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;

2) That the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and,

3) That the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision

- The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is
authorized by the letter of a general venue statute

-In a conflict problem, a court, even if it is so authorized to exercise jurisdiction, may still refuse to entertain the case by applying the
principle of forum non conveniens. However, whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the principle of
forum non conveniens depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court.

-Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in conflicts-of-laws cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is
not the most "convenient" or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. The propriety of
dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination; hence, it is more properly
considered as a matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this
ground, it should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require the courts
desistance

-forum non conveniens prevents forum shopping To begin with, forum-shopping originated as a concept in private international
law,where non-resident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for various reasons or
excuses, including to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select
a more friendly venue. To combat these less than honorable excuses, the principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby
a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most convenient or available forum
and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.

GR: A plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to great deference when the forum chosen is the home of the plaintiff. This presumption
is based on the fact that the choice of the home forum indicated a reasonable assumption that the choice is convenient.

When the plaintiff is foreign, however, this assumption is much less reasonable. If such is the case, courts must proceed with the
following guidelines in mind. In determining whether or not a forum is convenient or not:

NOTE: A forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. The
district court's decision may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion;where the court
has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors is
reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference.

1. DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FORUM IS ADEQUATE

- The defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of an adequate alternative forum.
- this requirement will be satisfied when the defendant is `amenable to process' in the other jurisdiction. However, it is
only in rare circumstances where the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or
unsatisfactory, that it is no remedy at all, that this requirement is not met.
- The foreign forum must provide the plaintiff with some remedy for his wrong in order for the alternative forum to be
adequate.
- The possibility of an unfavorable change in law should never be a relevant consideration in a forum non conveniens
inquiry. Of course, if the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is
no remedy at all, the unfavorable change in law may be given substantial weight; the district court may conclude that
dismissal would not be in the interests of justice.Thus, while it is not a "major factor" in the analysis, a court must at
least consider the effect on plaintiffs of a change in law upon transfer.
-
2. WITHIN ITS SOUND DISCRETION, CONSIDER RELEVANT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTEREST FACTORS.
- Each case turns on its facts. If central emphasis were placed on any one factor, the forum non conveniens doctrine
would lose much of the flexibility that makes it so valuable.
 a. Private Interest Factors
i. Relative ease of access to sources of proof
ii. Availability of compulsory process for attendance of willing witnesses; or the cost of obtaining attendance
of unwilling witnesses
iii. Ease of arranging for a view of the premises around which the litigation centers, if view would be
appropriate to the action
iv. the residence of the parties and the witnesses;
v. the forum's convenience to the litigants;
vi. the enforceability of the judgment
vii. all other practical problems that make trial of case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.

NOTE: unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely
be disturbed.

b. Public Interest Factors

i. Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being
handled at its origin.
j. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to
the litigation.
k. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach
rather than in remote parts of the country where they can learn of it by report only. There is a local interest in
having localized controversies decided at home.
l. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state
law that must govern the case, rather than *861 having a court in some other forum untangle problems in
conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.

Broken down list form Lueck:

(1) local interest of lawsuit;

(2) the court's familiarity with governing law;

(3) burden on local courts and juries;

(4) congestion in the court; and

(5) the costs of resolving a dispute unrelated to this forum.

Q: Is a choice of law determination necessary in a forum non conveniens inquiry? ONLY WHEN the case involves a local
law requiring that venue be in that locality/country. Otherwise, choice of law determination is given less deference.

FAIR WARNING REQUIREMENT

The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which
he has established no meaningful "contacts, ties, or relations." By requiring that individuals have "fair warning that a particular
activity may subject [them] to the jurisdiction of foreign sovereign," the Due Process Clause "gives a degree of predictability to the
legal system that allows potential defendants to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that
conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.

This "fair warning" requirement is satisfied if the defendant has "purposefully directed" his activities at residents of the forum, and
the litigation results from alleged injuries that "arise out of or relate to" those activities. The reasons why a forum may exercise
personal jurisdiction over a nonresident who purposefully directs his activities forward forum residents are the following:

1. A State generally has a "manifest interest" in providing its residents with a convenient forum for redressing injuries
inflicted by out-of-state actors.
 2. where individuals "purposefully derive benefit" from their interstate activities, it may well be unfair to allow them to
escape having to account in other States for consequences that arise proximately from such activities;
3. the Due Process Clause may not readily be wielded as a territorial shield to avoid interstate obligations that have been
voluntarily assumed.
4. And because"modern transportation and communications have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to
defend himself in a State where he engages in economic activity,"it usually will not be unfair to subject him to the
burdens of litigating in another forum for disputes relating to such activity.

When can you say defendants purposely established minimum contacts in forum state? There must be foreseeability on
defendants conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court
there." The foreseeability of causing injury in another State is NOT sufficient to establish contacts.

This "purposeful availment" requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of
"random," "fortuitous," or "attenuated" contacts, or of the "unilateral activity of another party or a third person,,

Jurisdiction is proper, however, where the contacts proximately result from actions by the defendant himself that create a
"substantial connection" with the forum State. Thus where the defendant "deliberately" has engaged in significant activities
within a State, or has created "continuing obligations" between himself and residents of the forum, he manifestly has
availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there, and, because his activities are shielded by "the benefits and
protections" of the forum's laws, it is presumptively not unreasonable to require him to submit to the burdens of litigation
in that forum as well.

Jurisdiction in these circumstances may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum
State. Although territorial presence frequently will enhance a potential defendant's affiliation with a State and reinforce the
reasonable foreseeability of suit there, it is an inescapable fact of modern commercial life that a substantial amount of
business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines, thus obviating the need for physical
presence within a State in which business is conducted. So long as a commercial actor's efforts are "purposefully directed"
toward residents of another State, we have consistently rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat
personal jurisdiction there.

FORUM CLAUSES

When there is a forum clause agreed upon, the courts may ignore it on the ground of forum non conveniens.

VALIDTY OF A FORUM CLAUSE: GR: A freely negotiated private international agreement, unaffected by fraud, undue influence, or
overweening bargaining power, such as that involved here, should be given full effect."

Reasonableness factors:
1. "strong evidence that the forum clause was a vital part of the agreement, and [that] it would be unrealistic to think that
the parties did not conduct their negotiations. But note that FC still enforceable even if it was not subject of negotiation.
2. the serious inconvenience of the contractual forum to one or both of the parties might carry greater weight in
determining the reasonableness of the forum clause.(i.e. if forum clause discourages plaintiff from pursuing claim)

When Forum clause may be ignored:

1. Forum non conveniens
2. Although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another by agreement of the parties in writing t to
Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules of Court, such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates the action
of the claimants, such as the private respondents herein. (sweetlines vs teves)
3. a stipulation as to venue does not preclude the filing of suits in the residence of plaintiff or defendant under Section 2 (b),
Rule 4, Rules of Court, in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words in the agreement which would indicate that the
place named is the only venue agreed upon by the parties. Applying the foregoing to the case at bar, the parties did not
thereby stipulate that only the courts of Singapore, to the exclusion of all the rest, has jurisdiction. Neither did the clause
in question operate to divest Philippine courts of jurisdiction (HSBC case)

The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue is that while they are considered valid and enforceable, venue
stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court in
 the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. They should be considered merely as an agreement or additional forum,
not as limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive. If the intention of the parties
were to restrict venue, there must be accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and
design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them.In the instant case, no restrictive words
like "only," "solely," "exclusively in this court," "in no other court save ," "particularly," "nowhere else but/except ,"
or words of equal import were stated in the contract.33 It cannot be said that the court of arbitration in London is an
exclusive venue to bring forth any complaint arising out of the employment contract.

c. REFUSAL TO ASSUME JURISDICTION BASED ON ACT OF STATE

The Act of State doctrine requires "that a court, after exercising jurisdiction, decline to review certain issues, in particular, the validity
or propriety of foreign acts of state.

Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not sit in
judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory. Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must
be obtained through the means open to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves." Our courts will not examine a
foreign law to determine whether it was adopted in conformity with the internal procedures and requirements of the enacting state.
The act of state doctrine, it has been well said, is not limited to situations in which "the foreign act is committed in a manner `colorably
valid' under foreign law. It should make no difference whether the foreign act is, under local law, partially or wholly, technically or
fundamentally, illegal. So long as the act is the act of the foreign sovereign, it matters not how grossly the sovereign has transgressed
its own laws.
GR: Act of State doctrine is directed at actions of executive and legislative branches of foreign government and does not apply to
judicial decisions.
Except: Judgment by foreign court is an act of state if it is a judgment obtained by a sovereignty.

GR: Generally, the act of state doctrine applies to official acts of foreign sovereigns performed within their own territory.
Exception: [T]he [act of state] doctrine is to be applied pragmatically and flexibly, with reference to its underlying considerations.
Thus, even when an act of a foreign state affects property outside of its territory, the considerations underlying the act of state
doctrine may still be present. Because the Republic's interest in the [enforcement of its laws does not] end at its borders, id., the
fact that the escrow funds were deposited in Singapore does not preclude the application of the act of state doctrine. The underlying
governmental interest of the Republic supports treatment of the judgment as an act of state.

-The Act of Stat doctrine prevents embarrassment on the part of the foreign government extant at time of suit. But the classification of
an act as act of state is not a promise to the rules that his conduct, IF CHALLENGED after his fall, will not be subject to scrutiny in
foreign courts. There is no estoppel as Act Of State Doctrine is not a magic word. Foreign courts refuse to judicially challenge acts of
state to prevent hostile confrontation with the dictator However, ONCE DEPOSED, it would be hard for him. The balance of
considerations is shifted and act of state has little or no application. It should be noted that ASD is flexible and ad hoc. Hence, it is a
means to FACILITATE foreign relations of the US. IT IS NOT TO BE USED TO FURNISHED SOVEREING IMMUNITY TO DEPOSED LEADERS.

- While sovereign immunity prevents the Tribe from being forced to participate in New York court proceedings, it does not require
everyone else to forego the resolution of all disputes that could affect the Tribe . While we fully respect the sovereign prerogatives of
the Indian tribes, we will not permit the Tribe's voluntary absence to deprive these plaintiffs (and in turn any member of the public) of
their day in court.

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

xxx
If a court assumes jurisdiction of the case (under 2 or 3 above), this will be the procedure:

In the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are involved:
 1. JURISDICTION Where can or should litigation be initiated? (see notes above)

-considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state

If court is authorized to assume jurisdiction, it may do so provided that the following requisites are met:
1) That the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;
2) That the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and,
3) That the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision

1a. Jurisdiction over the person

MINIMUM CONTACTS IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT

-Due process requires only that, in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory
of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice. Thus, the Due Process Clause "does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in
personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations." Even if the
defendant would suffer minimal or no inconvenience from being forced to litigate before the tribunals of another State; even if the
forum State has a strong interest in applying its law to the controversy; even if the forum State is the most convenient location for
litigation, the Due Process Clause, acting as an instrument of interstate federalism, may sometimes act to divest the State of its
power to render a valid judgment

-Since the corporate personality is a fiction, although a fiction intended to be acted upon as though it were a fact, it is clear that,
unlike an individual, its "presence" without, as well as within, the state of its origin can be manifested only by activities carried on in
its behalf by those who are authorized to act for it. "Presence" in the state in this sense has never been doubted when the activities
of the corporation there have not only been continuous and systematic, but also give rise to the liabilities sued on, even though no
consent to be sued or authorization to an agent to accept service of process has been given.

- Today if an authorized representative of a foreign corporation be physically present in the state of the forum and be there engaged
in activities appropriate to accepting service or receiving notice on its behalf, we recognize that there is no unfairness in subjecting
that corporation to the jurisdiction of the courts of that state through such service of process upon that representative. This has
been squarely held to be so in a proceeding in personam against such a corporation, at least in relation to a cause of action arising
out of the corporation's activities within the state of the forum.

The amount and kind of activities which must be carried on by the foreign corporation in the state of the forum so as to make it
reasonable and just to subject the corporation to the jurisdiction of that state are to be determined in each case. The corporate
activities of a foreign corporation which, under state statute, make it necessary for it to secure a license and to designate a statutory
agent upon whom process may be served provide a helpful but not a conclusive test. For example, the state of the forum may by
statute require a foreign mining corporation to secure a license in order lawfully to carry on there such functional intrastate
operations as those of mining or refining ore. On the other hand, if the same corporation carries on, in that state, other continuous
and systematic corporate activities as it did hereconsisting of directors' meetings, business correspondence, banking, stock
transfers, payment of salaries, purchasing of machinery, etc.those activities are enough to make it fair and reasonable to subject
that corporation to proceedings in personam in that state, at least insofar as the proceedings in personam seek to enforce causes of
action relating to those very activities or to other activities of the corporation within the state

-. Although it is foreseeable that automobiles sold by petitioners would travel to Oklahoma and that the automobile here might
cause injury in Oklahoma, "foreseeability" alone is not a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.
The foreseeability that is critical to due process analysis is not the mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum
State, but rather is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum are such that he should reasonably anticipate being
haled into court there. Nor can jurisdiction be supported on the theory that petitioners earn substantial revenue from goods used in
Oklahoma.

The Due Process Clause permits personal jurisdiction over a defendant in any State with which the defendant has"certain minimum
contacts . . . such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" In judging
minimum contacts, a court properly focuses on "the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation." Here,
California is the focal point both of the allegedly libelous article and of the harm suffered. Jurisdiction over petitioners is therefore
proper in California based on the "effects" of their Florida conduct in California. Petitioners are not charged with mere untargeted
negligence, but rather, their intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions were expressly aimed at California. They wrote and edited an
article that they knew would have a potentially devastating impact upon respondent, and they knew that the brunt of that injury
would be felt by respondent in the State in which she lives and works and in which the magazine has its largest circulation. Under
these circumstances, petitioners must "reasonably anticipate being haled into court there" to answer for the truth of the statements
made in the article. While petitioners' contacts with California are not to be judged according to their employer's activities there,
their status as employees does not insulate them from jurisdiction, since each defendant's contact with the forum State must be
assessed individually. (Mejia: Everything was done in Florida but the conduct of the respondents had far reaching effects in
California.)

- The fact that plainitff has very limited contacts with New Hampshire does not defeat jurisdiction, since a plaintiff is not required to
have "minimum contacts" with the forum State before that State is permitted to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant. A plaintiff's residence in the forum State is not a separate jurisdictional requirement, and lack of residence will not defeat
jurisdiction established on the basis of the defendant's contacts. The victim of a libel, like the victim of any other tort, may choose to
bring suit in any forum with which the defendant has"certain minimum contacts . . . such that the maintenance of the suit does not
offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"Here, where respondent has continuously and deliberately exploited
the New Hampshire market, it must reasonably anticipate being haled into court there in a libel action based on the contents of its
magazine. And, since respondent can be charged with knowledge of the "single publication rule," it must anticipate that such a suit
will seek nationwide damages. There is no unfairness in calling respondent to answer for the contents of its national publication
wherever a substantial number of copies are regularly sold and distributed

1b. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

1c. Jurisdiction over the res

- In rem
- Quasi in rem
- In Personam

LONG ARM STATUTES There are statutes that specify the kinds of contacts upon which jurisdiction will be asserted, such as
commission of a tortious act within the state, the celebration of a contract there or presence of property owned by the defendant.
Moreover, if these or other min. contacts exist, the court would be justified in exercising jd. because it has justified interest in
providing the plaintiff with a forum, and no fundamental unfairness will result. Note that the long arm statutes were born due to the
requirement that a state must how that there are min contacts between non-resident defendant and forum to justify its exercise of
jd.

GR: Philippine courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident, as laid down by the Supreme Court of the United
States in Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, 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. The several States are of equal dignity and authority, and
the independence of one implies the exclusion of power from all others. And so it is laid down by jurists, as an elementary principle,
that the laws of one State have no operation outside of its territory, except so far as is allowed by comity; and that no tribunal
established by it can extend its process beyond that territory so as to subject either persons or property to its decisions.

Exception: When, however, the action relates to property located in the Philippines, the Philippine courts may validly try the case,
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. Every State owes protection to its citizens; and, when non-residents deal
with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise of authority to hold and appropriate any property owned by such non-residents to
satisfy the claims of its citizens. It is in virtue of the State's jurisdiction over the property of the non-resident situated within its limits
that its tribunals can inquire into the non-resident's obligations to its own citizens, and the inquiry can then be carried only to the
extent necessary to control the disposition of the property. If the non-resident has no property in the State, there is nothing upon
which the tribunals can adjudicate

IN OTHER WORDS

GR: A suit against a non-resident cannot be entertained by a Philippine court.

Except: Where, however, the action is in rem or 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. In order that the court
may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the court should take actual custody of the property, potential custody
thereof being sufficient. There is potential custody when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the court over the
property is impliedly recognized by law. "An illustration of what we term potential jurisdiction over the res, is found in the
proceeding to register the title of land under our system for the registration of land. Here the court, without taking actual physical
control over the property , assumes, at the instance of some person claiming to be owner, to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the
property and to adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all the world."As before stated, in an action in rem or quasi in
rem against a non-resident defendant, jurisdiction over his person is non-essential, 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

2. CHOICE OF LAW Which law will the court apply?

- whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties
- As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek to answer two important questions: (1)
What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states;
and (2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation.
- Before determining which law should apply, first there should exist a conflict of laws situation requiring the application
of the conflict of laws rules. Also, when the law of a foreign country is invoked to provide the proper rules for the
solution of a case, the existence of such law must be pleaded and proved

When is there a conflict of law situation?

1. With respect to immovable property
(1) There is a dispute over the title or ownership of an immovable, such that the capacity to take and
transfer immovables, the formalities of conveyance, the essential validity and effect of the transfer, or the
interpretation and effect of a conveyance, are to be determined;and
(2) A foreign law on land ownership and its conveyance is asserted to conflict with a domestic law on the
same matters. Hence, the need to determine which law should apply.

TEST FACTORS/ POINTS OF CONTACT/ CONNECTING FACTORS

Rules to determine which state's law is to be applied in resolving the substantive issues of a conflicts problem:

1.Lex loci celebrationis relates to the law of the place of the ceremony or the law of the place where a contract is made.

2. doctrine of lex contractus or 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 implicitly.
Example: According to the doctrine of lex loci contractus, as a general rule, the law of the place where a contract is
made or entered into governs with respect to its nature and validity, obligation and interpretation. This has been
said to be the rule even though the place where the contract was made is different from the place where it is to be
performed, and particularly so, if the place of the making and the place of performance are the same. Hence, the
court should apply the law of the place where the airline ticket was issued, when the passengers are residents
and nationals of the forum and the ticket is issued in such State by the defendant airline.

3.STATE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP RULE, the court should determine which state has the most substantial
connection to the occurrence and the parties.
- In a case involving a contract, the court should consider:
- where the contract was made,
- was negotiated,
-was to be performed, and
-the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the parties.
-in torts cases, take into account the following: (but take note of over-all injury rule)
- the place where the injury occurred;
 - the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
-the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and
-the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.

Other factors (Saudi Arabian case):

Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the possible test for the determination of the applicable
law. 59 These "test factors" or "points of contact" or "connecting factors" could be any of the following: FIFA CSPN

N(1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin; (DR SON)
Example: A provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with
Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to
those matters that Article 16 of the Civil Code states said national law should govern.

C(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;

S(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;

A(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;

E(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;

I(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis;

F(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

F (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.

PROCEDURAL LAWS

-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, period and requisites for appeal, 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.

Exception to GR: A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as
procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law.

Exception to Exception: However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law 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

Exception to exception to exception: The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's public
policy.

CHOICE OF LAW STIPULATION

GR: The stipulation should be respected since a contract freely entered into should, of course, be respected since the contract is the
law between parties.

Exception: Note that this is not absolute since parties may stipulate anything that is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy.

1. the governing principle is that parties may not contract away applicable provisions of law especially peremptory provisions
dealing with matters heavily impressed with public interest. The law relating to labor and employment is clearly such an
area and parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and
regulations by simply contracting with each other. It is thus necessary to appraise the contractual provisions invoked by
petitioner PIA in terms of their consistency with applicable Philippine law and regulations (so stip. in employment contract
stating that employment contract shall be governed by laws of Saudi is void)

IF FOREIGN LAW INVOKED

1. Prove foreign law like any other fact (see law how)
In proving a foreign law the procedure is provided in the Rules of Court. With respect to an unwritten foreign law, Rule 130
section 45 states that:

SEC. 45. Unwritten law.The oral testimony of witnesses, skilled therein, is admissible as evidence of the unwritten law of
a foreign country, as are also printed and published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the foreign country, if
proved to be commonly admitted in such courts.

Proof of a written foreign law, on the other hand, is provided for under Rule 132 section 25, thus:

SEC. 25. Proof of public or official record.An official record or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by
his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and authenticated by the seal of his office.

The Court has interpreted section 25 to include competent evidence like the testimony of a witness to prove the existence
of a written foreign law [Collector of Internal Revenue v. Fisher 110 Phil. 686, 700-701 (1961) citing Willamette Iron and
Steel Works v. Muzzal, 61 Phil. 471 (1935).]

2. Effect if foreign law not proven

i. Processual presumption
3. Exceptions to the rule that foreign law must be proven
i. In cases involving OFWs, the rights and obligations among and between the OFW, the local
recruiter/agent, and the foreign employer/principal are governed by the employment contract. A contract
freely entered into is considered law between the parties
ii. Admitted by parties (Bellis vs Bellis) that this is what the law of a foreign country is
iii. Expert witness (lawyer)
The Bank, however, cannot rely on Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal or Collector of
Internal Revenue v. Fisher to support its cause. These cases involved attorneys testifying in open
court during the trial in the Philippines and quoting the particular foreign laws sought to be
established. On the other hand, the Walden affidavit was taken abroad ex parte and the affiant
never testified in open court.The Walden affidavit cannot be considered as proof of New York
law on damages not only because it is self-serving but also because it does not state the specific
New York law on damages.
iv. Mere authentication of the Chinese Naturalization Law by the Chinese Consulate General of Manila has
been held to be competent proof of that law.
 v. NEED NOT BE PROVEN as a matter of fact in the following cases. Pwede na if court is satisfied of
authenticity of written proof offered:
1. Naturalization
2. Insolvency proceedings
3. Cadastral cases
4. Other cases not provided for
5. Land Registration cases
6. Election cases
4. When foreign law does not or should NOT be applied foreign law should not be applied when its application would work
undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a
law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws.[35]
5. Burden of proving foreign law
- The burden of proof lies with the party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or
defense of an action. In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of proving the material allegations of the complaint when
those are denied by the answer; and defendants have the burden of proving the material allegations in their answer
when they introduce new matters. Since the divorce was a defense raised by respondent, the burden of proving the
pertinent Australian law validating it falls squarely upon him.

-Art. 71. All marriages performed outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were
performed and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except bigamous, Polygamous, or incestuous marriages, as
determined by Philippine law. (Emphasis supplied.) *** Construing this provision of law the Court has held that to establish a valid
foreign marriage two things must be proven, namely: (1) the existence of the foreign law as a question of fact; and (2) the alleged
foreign marriage by convincing evidence

3. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS Where can the resulting judgment be enforced?

-Generally, in the absence of a special compact, no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a
tribunal of another country; however, the rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations have established a usage among
civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered
efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different countries.

In this jurisdiction, a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar as the immediate parties and the
underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is convincingly shown that:

- there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction;

- that the trial upon regular proceedings has been conducted, following due citation or voluntary appearance of the
defendant and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice; and

-that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and in the system of laws under which it is sitting or fraud in
procuring the judgment.

-A FOREIGN JUDGMENT IS PRESUMED TO BE VALID AND BINDING IN THE COUNTRY FROM WHICH IT COMES, until the contrary is
shown. It is also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and the giving of due notice therein.

BURDEN OF OVERCOMING PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY

Consequently, the party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity.

-The recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is not necessarily affected by the fact that the procedure in the courts of the
country in which such judgment was rendered differs from that of the courts of the country in which the judgment is relied on. This
Court has held that matters of remedy and procedure are governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum. Thus, if under
the procedural rules of the Civil Court of Dehra Dun, India, a valid judgment may be rendered by adopting the arbitrator's findings,
then the same must be accorded respect. In the same vein, if the procedure in the foreign court mandates that an Order of the
Court becomes final and executory upon failure to pay the necessary docket fees, then the courts in this jurisdiction cannot
invalidate the order of the foreign court simply because our rules provide otherwise.
EFFECTS OF FOREIGN JUDGMEENT OR FINAL ORDERS

SEC. 48, Rule 39. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders.The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country,
having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:

(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title of the
thing; and

(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.

In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

NOTE: Every precaution must be taken to ensure conformity with our laws before a recognition is made, as the foreign judgment,
once recognized, shall have the effect of res judicata between the parties.

NOTE: While this Court has given the effect of res judicata to foreign judgments in several cases,[7] it was after the parties opposed
to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to repel them on grounds allowed under the law.[8] It is not necessary for this
purpose to initiate a separate action or proceeding for enforcement of the foreign judgment. What is essential is that there is
opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court to properly determine its efficacy. This is because in this
jurisdiction, with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima
facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary. (i.e. Court found from the
evidence as well as from appellants own pleadings[11] that the foreign court did not make a clear mistake of law or fact or that its
judgment was void for want of jurisdiction or because of fraud or collusion by the defendants. Trial had been previously held in the
lower court and only afterward was a decision rendered, declaring the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington to
have the effect of res judicata in the case before the lower court. In the same vein, in Philippine International Shipping Corp. v. Court
of Appeals, this Court held that the foreign judgment was valid and enforceable in the Philippines there being no showing that it was
vitiated by want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud or clear mistake of law or fact. The prima facie presumption under the Rule
had not been rebutted.) It was error therefore for the Court of Appeals to summarily rule that petitioners action is barred by the
principle of res judicata. Petitioners in fact questioned the jurisdiction of the U.S. court over their persons, but their claim was
brushed aside by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

Divorce Decrees

Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national
law. Therefore, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a
fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. It is
WRONG to argue that an Australian divorce decree is a public document hence no further proof of its authenticity and due
execution is required. . Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be presented
and admitted in evidence. A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment
is the judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country.
Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a
foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document.
If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or
consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by
the seal of his office.

Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some foreign statutes and practices, still restrict remarriage. Under
some other jurisdictions, remarriage may be limited by statute. . It did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry
according to his national law. Hence, we find no basis for the ruling of the trial court, which erroneously assumed that the Australian
divorce ipso facto restored respondents capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this matter. We also reject the claim
of respondent that the divorce decree raises a disputable presumption or presumptive evidence as to his civil status based on
Section 48, Rule 39[49] of the Rules of Court, for the simple reason that no proof has been presented on the legal effects of the
divorce decree obtained under Australian laws.

Q: Can the alien spouse invoke Article 26 of the Family Code in order to remarry? No
A: Preliminarily, the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provided the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or
her marriage to the alien spouse considered as dissolved, capacitating him or her to remarry. Without the second paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code, the judicial recognition of the foreign decree of divorce, whether in a proceeding instituted precisely
for that purpose or as a related issue in another proceeding, would be of no significance to the Filipino spouse since our laws do not
recognize divorce as a mode of severing the marital bond;[25] Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that the policy against absolute
divorces cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated in a foreign country. The inclusion of the second paragraph in Article 26 of
the Family Code provides the direct exception to this rule and serves as basis for recognizing the dissolution of the marriage
between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse.

The unavailability of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip Gerbert(foreign sps)
of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after its
authenticity and conformity with the aliens national law have been duly proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as a
presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert (foreign sps), pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides
for the effect of foreign judgments.

To our mind, direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the requisite interest
to institute an action before our courts for the recognition of the foreign judgment. In a divorce situation, we have declared, no less,
that the divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be recognized in the Philippines, provided the divorce is valid according to his or
her national law.[27]