1. A. SB’s motion to dismiss should be granted.

In the case of Manila Hotel v NLRC, the court held that under the rule on forum non
conveniens, Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses
to do so provided: (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. However, a closer examination of the case at bar
reveals that Philippine court cannot meet the above-cited requirements.

First, Philippine court is an inconvenient forum since the acts complained of happened
outside the Philippines. The inconvenience is also compounded by the fact that SB is an
American company not doing business in the Philippines.

Second, no intelligent decision can be made as to the law governing the contract between
RR and SB since such was perfected in foreign soil. This calls to fore the application of lex
loci contractus or the law of the place where the contract was made.

Lastly, Any decision of the Philippine courts would not have any binding effect against
the employer, SB, since it is an American corporation incorporated unbder the laws of the
United States.

Considering all the circumstances, Philippine court is an inconvenient forum, hence, the
motion to dismiss must be granted.

B. SB’s motion to dismiss should be denied.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Hasegawa v Kitamura, held that forum non conveniens
cannot be used to deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction. 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. In this case, the 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.
SB’s motion to dismiss premised on forum non conveniens is fatally defective and must,
therefore be denied.

2. A. V’s contention holds no water.

It is a well-enshrined doctrine in the case of Hasegawa v Kitamura that 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. Furthermore, 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.

In the case at bar, the decision on whether or not the Philippine courts will have a hard
time to determine Italian Law rests solely on the sound determination of the court and
such Italian law must first be proved and pleaded as a fact before it can be invoked to
provide the proper solution to a case.

Hence, V’s contention is unmeritorious.

B. A foreign element is anything that has a foreign component to it. It can be a foreigner, a
foreign corporation, or a foreign law chosen by the parties. As explained in the case of
Saudia v CA, a factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the
diverse laws of two or more states is said to contain a foreign element.

Without a foreign element, the case is only a domestic problem with no conflicts
dimension. In this instance, there is no doubt that domestic or internal laws shall apply.
However, the presence of foreign element is a proof that the problem could present a
“conflicts” case which calls to fore the application of the conflict of law rules.

3.
A. Article 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country
where it is situated.

However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and
regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.

B. As discussed in the seminal case of Saudia v CA, “State of the most significant
relationship" rule is a modern theory in tort liability where the State which has the most
significant relationship is identified by taking into account the following points of contact
according to their relative importance with respect to a particular issue: (a) the place
where the injury occurred; (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
(c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the
parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.

4.
A. SAMESAME with Saudia v CA
B. It depends. Cite Artcle 16. Japanese Law shall govern the testamentary disposition of
his properties. If Japanese Law allows, then it is valid. If Japanese Law does not allow,
then it is invalid.
5.

A. Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living
abroad.

B. Article 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments
shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.

C. Article 14. Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon
all who live and sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty stipulations.

Exception:

Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the
Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone,
but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

D. Article 15.

E. Article 16 par 1. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
country to where it is situated vis-à-vis Article 17 par 1.

Six. Section 24 Rule 132 – Proof of official record. The record of public documents referred to in
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official
 publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having 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 the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
consul, or consular agent or by any officer of 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.

Section 25 Rule 132. – What attestation of copy must state. Whenever a copy of a document or
record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the
copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation
must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a
court having a seal, under the seal of such court.

Exceptions to proof of foreign laws:

1. Presentation of a foreign-licensed attorney who will testify in an open court concerning her
knowledge on the law in question.
2. Administrative Agencies
3. Lack of objection to the improper presentation by one party
4. Universally known law or law shoes existence is known to most men due to its universality.
5. Those appearing in official websites (i.e. Office of the President, Library of Congress, etc.)

Seven.

A. Cite Article 17 par 3. Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts, or property, and those which
have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective
by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign
country.
B. Israel Law. Cite Article 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
country where it is situated.

Eight.

A. In the case of Hasegawa v Kitamura, the court held that in the judicial resolution of conflicts
problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition
and enforcement of judgments. Corresponding to these phases are the following questions: (1)
Where can or should litigation be initiated? (2) Which law will the court apply? and (3) Where
can the resulting judgment be enforced?
Analytically, jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts. Jurisdiction considers
whether it is fair to cause a 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. The power to exercise jurisdiction does not automatically give a state
constitutional authority to apply forum law.

B.