1.

PHASES OF JUDICIAL RESOLUTION- 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?
(Hasegawa vs. kitamura)
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER AS EXPLAINED IN HASEGAWA VS.
KITAMURA- 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. 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.
2. EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION AS
EXPLAINED IN BANCO DE BRAZIL VS. CA- When the defendant is a nonresident and he is not
found in the country, summons may be served extraterritorially in accordance with Rule 14, Section 17 of
the Rules of Court. Under this provision, there are only four (4) instances when extraterritorial service of
summons is proper, namely: "(1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiffs; (2) when the
action relates to, or the subject of which is property, within the Philippines, in which the defendant claims
a lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3) when the relief demanded in such action consists, wholly or in
part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines; and (4) when the
defendant non-residents property has been attached within the Philippines. In these instances, service of
summons may be effected by (a) personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (b) publication,
also with leave of court; or (c) any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
Extraterritorial service of summons apply only where the action is in rem, an action against the thing
itself instead of against the person, or in an action quasi in rem, where an individual is named as
defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or loan
burdening the property. This is so inasmuch as, in in rem and quasi in rem actions, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court
acquires jurisdiction over the res.
However, where the action is in personam, one brought against a person on the basis of his personal
liability, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide
the case. When the defendant is a non-resident, personal service of summons within the state is essential
to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person. This cannot be done, however, if the defendant is not
physically present in the country, and thus, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and
therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him.
While the action is in rem, by claiming damages, the relief demanded went beyond the res and sought a
relief totally alien to the action. It must be stressed that any relief granted in rem or quasi in rem actions
must be confined to the res, and the court cannot lawfully render a personal judgment against the
defendant.

3. CAUSE OF ACTION TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION ENUNCIATED IN PIONEER VS. TODAROA cause of action exists if the following elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by
whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and, (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant
violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the
plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.
The complaint does not have to establish or allege facts proving the existence of a cause of action at the
outset; this will have to be done at the trial on the merits of the case. To sustain a motion to dismiss for
lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a
claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.
THE CASE FURTHER EXPLAINED JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP- The Court has consistently held that where no employer-employee relationship exists
between the parties and no issue is involved which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other
labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction.
4. JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF LAW DISTINGUISHED IN HASEGAWA VS. KITAMURA 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. While
jurisdiction and the 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.
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.
Principles in conflict of laws that make reference to the law applicable to a dispute are rules proper for the
second phase, the choice of law. They determine which state's law is to be applied in resolving the
substantive issues of a conflicts problem. Necessarily, if the only issue in a case is that of jurisdiction,
choice-of-law rules are not only inapplicable but also not yet called for.
5. ALTERNATIVES IN DISPOSITION OF CONFLICT CASES LAID DOWN IN HASEGAWA VS.
KITAMURA- 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.
FOREIGN ELEMENT -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. The presence of a foreign element is

inevitable since social and economic affairs of individuals and associations are rarely confined to the
geographic limits of their birth or conception
IN RAYTHEON VS. ROUZIE, IT WAS HELD THAT- In the instances where the Court held that the
local judicial machinery was adequate to resolve controversies with a foreign element, the following
requisites had to be proved: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently
resort; (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 the power to enforce its decision.
6. FORUM NON CONVENIENS AS DEFINED IN RAYTHEON VS. ROUZIE- 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.
BANK OF AMERICA VS. CA EXPLAINED THE EMERGENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF
FORUM NON-CONVENIENS- The doctrine of forum non-conveniens, literally meaning the forum is
inconvenient, emerged in private international law to deter the practice of global forum shopping, that is
to prevent non-resident litigants from choosing the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for
malicious reasons, such as to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid
overcrowded dockets, or to select a more friendly venue.
FURTHER, IN HASEGAWA VS. KITAMURA, IT WAS RULED THAT FORUM NON
CONVENIENS CANNOT BE USED TO DEPRIVE COURTS JURISDICTION BEFORE TRIALFirst, forum non conveniens 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. 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, the merits of which should be properly threshed out during trial.
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. (Raytheon vs. Rouzie)
7. MHC VS. CA IS A CASE INVOLVING FOREIGN ELEMENT WHEREIN FORUM NON
CONVENIENS WAS APPLIED- Philippine tribunal is seriously inconvenient forum when the main
aspects of the case transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements;
the only link that the Philippines has with the case is that one of the parties is a Filipino citizen. Not all
cases involving our citizens can be tried here. Philippine tribunal is not a convenient forum and has no
power to determine applicable laws, no power to determine facts and no power to execute decision.
Paramount is the private interest of the litigant and the enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained.
Relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial are equally important. 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. When no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have been shown by
either of the parties. The choice of forum of the plaintiff should be upheld. (SAUDIA vs. CA)
DOCTRINE OF QUALIFICATION- Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for the court to
determine under what 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.
Court ruled that theres no reason why a conflict of law rule should apply when no conflict of law
situation exists. A conflict of law situation arises only when: (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. Laurel vs. garcia; 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.
CHOICE OF LAW STIPULATION- The choice of law stipulation will become relevant only when the
substantive issues of the case develop, that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds before the trial court.
(Raytheon vs. Rouzie)
CONNECTING FACTORS IN CHOICE OF LAW- as cited in SAUDIA vs. CA, 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 actusis particularly important
in contracts and torts;
(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 forithe law of the
forumis 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.
FACTOR IN TORTS CASE- When the complaint in the court is one involving torts, the connecting
factor or point of contact could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus
occurred.
MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP- To determine the State which has the most significant
relationship, the following contacts are to be taken into account and evaluated according to their relative
importance with respect to the 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.
.
NATIONAL LAW IN ARTICLE 16 OF THE CIVIL CODE- AZNAR VS. GARCIA decrees that there
is no such thing as one American law. The "national law" indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code cannot
possibly apply to general American law. There is no such law governing the validity of testamentary
provisions in the United States. Each State of the union has its own law applicable to its citizens and in
force only within the State. It can therefore refer to no other than the law of the State of which the
decedent was a resident.
If the laws of a foreign state have prescribed sets of laws for its citizens, one for residents therein and
another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions, reason demands that the Philippine court must apply the
internal law for residents of such foreign state and its conflict-of-laws rule for those domiciled abroad.
The national law mentioned in Art. 16 of the civil code refers to the conflict of laws rule of a foreign state.
IN THE SAME CASE RENVOI DOCTRINE WAS DISCUSSED- It arises when a jural matter is
presented which the conflict-of-laws rule of the forum refers to a foreign law, the conflict-of-laws rule of
which, in turn, refers the matter back again to the law of the forum. If the conflict rule of a foreign state
authorizes the reference or return of the question to the law of the forum, the forum cannot and should not
refer the case back to the foreign state; such action would leave the issue incapable of determination
because the case will then be like a football, tossed back and forth between two states.
IN BELLIS VS. BELLIS RENVOI DOCTRINE WAS APPLIED IN RELATION TO TESTAMENTARY
SUCCESSION- Here, if the decedent in succession case is both a national of another state and a domicile
thereof at the time of his death, even assuming his state has a conflict of law rule providing that the
domiciliary system should govern, the same would not result in a reference back to Philippine law, but
would still refer to foreign law. In the absence of proof as to the conflict of law rule of a foreign law, it
should not be presumed different from Philippine law.
Whether a will executed by an alien in the Philippines is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from the
decedent are issues best proved by foreign law which must be pleaded and proved. Whether the will was
executed in accordance with the formalities required is answered by referring to Philippine law.

THE CASE ALSO CLARIFIED THAT ARTICLE 16 IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION, HENCE

PUBLIC POLICY CANNOT BE RAISED TO COUNTER IT- it says that, whatever public policy or
good customs may be involved in Philippine System of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the
same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount
of successional rights, to the decedent's national law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.
IT ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT ARTICLE 16 OF THE CIVIL CODE IS NOT WAIVABLE- 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.
IN THE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAW, LORENTE VS. CA IS INSTRUCTIVE- foreign
laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice
of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.
However, in Dumez vs. NLRC, the court ruled that although in a long line of cases, the court has ruled
that a foreign law, being a matter of evidence must be alleged and proved, in order to be recognized and
applied in a particular controversy involving conflicts of laws, jurisprudence on this matter was not meant
to apply to cases before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies in the light of the well-settled rule that
administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are not bound strictly by technical rules.
FOREIGN DIVORCE, A MATTER OF FACT- Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that 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.
CRESCENT VS. M/V LOK ALSO DISCUSSED THE DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL
PRESUMPTION -If foreign law is the applicable law, but the same was not properly pleaded and
proved, such foreign law must be presumed to be the same as Philippine law. It is well-settled that a party
whose cause of action or defense depends upon a foreign law has the burden of proving the foreign law.
Such foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved.
BORROWING STATUTE AS EXPLAINED IN LWV vs. Dupo A borrowing statute is a statute
which directs the court of the forum to apply the foreign statute to the pending claims based on a foreign
law. Borrowing 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. Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure is of this
kind. 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 to labor.