UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS

COLLEGE OF LAW

COURSE SYLLABUS

I. COURSE TITLE: Conflict of Laws

II. NUMBER OF UNITS: 2 Units

III. SEMESTER: First Semester (Regular 3rd year students)

IV. COURSE DESCRIPTION:

This course covers mainly the governing laws, rules and established
jurisprudence in conflict of laws. More specifically, the course shall deal with the
fundamental concepts and principles, as well as laws and rules on jurisdiction,
choice of law and forum in conflict cases or problems, and the recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgment.

V. COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES:

At the end of the semester, the learners are able to:

1. Explain the relevant governing laws, rules, principles and doctrines in

conflict of laws; and
2. Discuss the fundamental principles and rules in the resolution of conflict
cases under Philippine laws as well as internationally accepted principles
in private international law on jurisdiction, choice of law and forum, and
enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments.

VI COURSE CONTENT AND OBJECTIVES:

OBJECTIVES TOPICS
WEEK 1 (Aug. 17-22)
At the end of the first week, the
learners are able to:
 Define Conflict of laws and private 1. Definitions
international law;
 Conflict of laws
 Distinguish Conflict of Laws/Private  Private international law
International Law from Public  Public international law
International Law; and  Public international law vs. private
international law
 Discuss the purpose and sources of
conflict of laws. 2. Historical development of Conflict of laws

 Roman law influence

 Recent developments

3. Purpose and objective of Conflict of Laws

4. Sources of Conflict of laws

5. Applicability of conflict of laws

 Civil cases
 Criminal cases
Week 2 (Aug. 24 - 29)
At the end of week 2, the learners are
able to:

 Discuss the concept of a conflict 1. Concept of a conflict case/problem

case/problem and its ramifications;
 Explain the elements of a conflict 2. Elements of a conflict case/problem
case/problem; and
 Distinguish the different phases of Foreign element
conflict case resolution.
 Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of
Appeals- GR No. 122191, Oct. 8, 1998

3. Phases of conflict case resolution

 Hasegawa v. Kitamura GR No. 14177,
November 23, 2007
Week 3 and (Week 4 Aug. 31- Sept.

At the end of week 3 and 4, the

learners are able to:

 Discuss the fundamental principles 1. Definitions and review of general

in jurisdiction; and principles in jurisdiction

 Discuss principles and rules in  Glynna Foronda-Crystal Vs Aniana Lawas

jurisdiction as applied in conflict Son G.R. No. 221815 November29, 2017
cases  Banco Espanol Filipina v. Palanca 37 Phil.
921
 Andaya v. Abadia 228 SCRA 705, 717
 PERKINS, vs. DIZON G.R. No. 46631
November 16, 1939
 BILAG v. AY-AY G.R. No. 189950 April 24,
2017

2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

a. Fundamental principles on jurisdiction

over the subject matter

 Pablo B. Malabanan V. Republic Of

The Philippines, G.R. No. 201821,
September 19, 2018
 Reyes vs. Diaz 73 Phil 484, 485
 Morales vs. court of Appeals, 283
SCRA 211, 225
 De Jesus vs. Garcia 19 SCRA 554
 De la Rosa vs. Rolda 501 SCRA 34

b. Classification of actions for purposes of

determining the existence of jurisdiction

 Alcasid vs. Court of Appeals- 217

SCRA 437
 Cadimas vs. Carrion GR No. 180394,
September 29, 2008
 Jose vs. Boyon, GR No. 147369, Oct.
23, 2003
 Domagas vs. Jensen G.R. No. 158407,
January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 663
 Dial vs. Judge Soriano GR No. 82330,
May 31, 1988
  Republic vs. Elepano GR No. 92542,
October 15, 1991

3. Jurisdiction over the person

a. Acquiring jurisdiction over the plaintiff

b. Acquiring jurisdiction over the defendant

 Summons (Rule 14 ROC)

 Character of summons (Sec. 2)

 When issued (Sec. 1)

 Asiavest Limited vs. court of
Appeals, 296 SCRA 539
 Alba vs. Court of Appeals- 465
SCRA 495

 Contents of Summons (Sec. 2)

 Who may serve summon (Sec. 3)
 How summons is served (Sec. 5, 6, 7,
8,9, 10, 11, 12)

 Service upon foreign private juridical

entities (Sec. 14)

 Concept of “doing business” in the

Phils.
 MR Holdings v. Bajar GR No.
138104 (380 SCRA 617)
 Hahn v. Court of Appeals and BMW
GR No. 113074, January 23, 1997
 Agilent Technologies Singapore Ltd
v. Integrated Silicon Technology,
Phili. Corp GR No. 154618 April 14,
2004

 Extraterritorial service (Sec. 17, 18)

 Return of Summons and Proof of
service (Sec. 20, 21, 22)
 What constitutes voluntary
appearance (Sec. 13)

4. Jurisdiction over the res/thing

 Sec. 17, 18, Rule 14

 Licaros v Licaros GR No. 150656 April
29, 2003
 Valmonte v, CA GR 108538 Jan. 22,
1996

5. Jurisdiction in relation to other principles

in law
 Jurisdiction and laches and
estoppel
 Jurisdiction and Compromise
Agreement
 Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss
 Jurisdiction and Presumption of
jurisdiction

Week 5 (Sept. 14-19)

At the end of the 5th week, the learners
are able to:

 Explain the concept of forum 1. Forum non-conveniens

shopping in relation to the concept
of forum non-conveniens in conflict a. Concept of forum shopping
problems/cases; and
 Sec. 5, Rule 7, ROC
 Discuss cases or instances when  Spouses Carpio vs. Rural Bank of Sto.
the principle of forum non- Tomas Batangas, G.R. No. 153171,
conveniens may find application in May 4, 2006
a conflict problem.
b. Test in determining the existence of forum
shopping

 Multinational vs. C.A. 203 SCRA 104)

c. Effects of violation of the rule on non-

forum shopping

d. Forum shopping in conflict of laws

 Bernardo S. Zamora, Vs. Emmanuel

Z. Quinan, et. al., November 29, 2017,
G.R. No. 216139
 First Philippine International Bank v.
Court of Appeals 322 Phil. 280 (1996)

e. Meaning and application of forum non-

conveniens

 Puyat vs. Zabarte (406 Phil 413) .R.

No. 141536. February 26, 2001

 The Manila Hotel Corp. And Manila

Hotel Intl. Ltd. Vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No.
120077 October 13, 2000

 Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc.,

Pioneer Philippines Holdings, And
Philip J. Klepzig, Vs. Antonio D.
Todaro, G.R. No. 154830 June 8, 2007

 Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) V. Ma.

Jopette M. Rebesencio, G.R. No.
198587, January 14, 2015

 Bank of America, NT&SA, Bank of

America International, Ltd. v. Court of
Appeals,

 Hasegawa Vs. Kitamura Gr No.

149177, November 23, 2007

Week 6 and (Week 7 Sept. 21-26) (

At the end of the 6th and 7th week,

the learners are able to: 1. Lex fori defined

 Explain the concept of Lex fori in 2. Other related terms defined

conflict of laws;  Lex domicilii
 Lex fori
 Discuss the cases when lex fori  Lex loci
 will be applied in a conflict case;  Lex loci contractus
 Lex loci rei sitae
 Explain the concepts of renvoi  Lex situs
and processual presumption in  Lex loci actus
conflict of laws; and  Lex loci celebrationis
 Lex loci solutionis
 Explain other related terms and  Lex loci delicti commissi
concepts.  Lex mereatoria
 Lex non scripta
 Lex patriae

3. Application of lex fori in conflict

case/problem

a. When the conflict rule provides

 Article 16, 2nd par CC

 Art. 80 FC
 Art. 829 CC
 Art. 819 CC

b. When the proper foreign law (lex causae)

has not been properly pleaded and proved.

 Atci Overseas Corporation Vs.

Amalia G. Ikdal
 G.R. No. 178551 October 11, 2010

 Zalamea vs. Court of Appeals, 228

SCRA 23

 Edi-staff Builders International v.

NLRC GR No. 145587, Oct. 26,
2007

 Limited v. CA GR No. 128803

September 25, 1998-

 Fluemer vs. Hix 54 Phil 610

 Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

v. Guerero GR No. 136804,
February 19, 2003

 Where the foreign law is

unwritten
 Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd.
Vs. Court Of Appeals And
Philippine President Lines In
G.R. No. 119602 October 6,
2000

 Doctrine of processual
presumption
 Pakistan International Airlines
Corporation, Vs Hon. Blas F.
Ople G.R. No. 61594 September
28, 1990
 Norma A. Del Socorro, Vs. Ernst
Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem,
GR. No. 193707 December 10,
2014
  Renvoi
 In The Matter Of The Testate
Estate Of Edward E.
Christensen, Deceased. Adolfo
C. Aznar, Executor And Lucy
Christensen, Vs. Helen
Christensen Garcia G.R. No. L-
16749 January 31, 1963

c. When the case falls under any of the eight

basic exceptions to the application of the
proper foreign law
Week 8 (Oct. 5 - 9)
At the end of week 8, the learners
should be able to:  Integration of the principles and rules in
 Apply the fundamental jurisdiction, forum non-conveniens and
principles and rules in application of lex fori in conflict cases
jurisdiction as applied in
conflict problems, forum non-
conveniens and application of
lex fori in a conflict problem.

Week 9 (
Midterm Exam Oct. 12-17)
Week 10 and Week 11 and(Oct. 19)
At the end of week 10th and 11th week,
the learners should be able to:

 Explain the eight basic 1. Exceptions to the application of the proper

exceptions to the application of foreign law (lex causae)
the proper foreign law (lex
causae); and a. When the foreign law, judgment or
contract is contrary to sound and
 Discuss relevant provisions of established public policy of the forum.
the local laws and
jurisprudential doctrines in  On Foreign Divorces
relation to the exceptions to the o Section 2, Art. XV
application of lex causae Constitution
o Art. 15 CC
o Art. 17 CC
o Art. 26 FC
o Void marriages by reason of
public policy - Art. 26 FC,
Article 35 par. 1, 4, 5, and 6,
Article 36, 37 and 38 of the
FC
o Tenchavez vs. Escano 15
SCRA 355
o Gerbert Corpuz Vs. Daisylyn
Tirol Sto Tomas And The
Solgen GR. NO. 186571

o Fujiki vs Marinay G.R. No.

196049 June 26,
2013

o Republic v. Marelyn Tanedo

Manalo, G.R. No. 221029
April 24, 2018

 On labor

o Cadalin vs. POEA, 238 SCRA

 721

 On succession

o Art. 16 CC
o Miciano vs. Brimo, 50 Phil
867 G.R. No. L-22595

o Aznar vs. Garcia GR no. L-

16749
o Bellis vs. Bellis GR No. L-
23687

o Joint wills
o Art. 17 CC
o Art 815 CC, 816 ?CC, 818
CC, 818 CC,

 On custody of children

o Dacasin vs. Dacasin GR No.

168785

 On splitting causes of action

o BANK OF AMERICA, NT
and SA, vs. AMERICAN
REALTY CORPORATION
and COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. No.
133876 December 29,
1999

b. When the foreign law is contrary to

universally accepted principles of
morality, or contra bonus mores

 First and second exception

compared
 Art. 17 CC

c. When the foreign law or judgment is

penal in nature

 Generality and territoriality

principle in criminal law
 Art. 14 CC

d. when the foreign law, judgment or

contract is procedural in nature

 LWV Construction
Corporation, , V. Marcelo B.
Dupo, [G.R. No. 172342 : July 13,
2009]

 Cadalin vs. POEA, 238 SCRA 721

 “Borrowing Statute”

e. When the foreign law is fiscal in nature

f. When the foreign law, judgment or

contract works injustice to citizens or
 residents of the forum

g. When the foreign law, judgment or

contract is contrary to the vital interests
and national secutiy of the state

h. When the case involves real or personal

property situated in the forum.

 Art. 15, 16, 17 CC compared

 Lex Rei Sitae
 Lex Loci celebrationis
 Lex Loci nationalii
 Lex Contractus
 Lex loci voluntatis
 Lex loci intentioniis
 HASEGAWA VS. KITAMURA GR
NO. 149177, NOVEMBER 23, 2007

 Primacy of lex situs/rei sitae

 Exceptions to the primacy of lex

situs
 Miciano vs. Brimo, 50 Phil 867 G.R.
No. L-22595

Week 12
At the end of the 12th week, the
learners should be able to:

 Discuss the principles 1. Instances when proper foreign law should

underlying the application of apply
foreign law in conflict
cases/problems; and 2. Theories underlying the application of the
proper foreign law or lex causae
 Distinguish between a purely
internal rule from a conflict rule. 3. Internal rules vs. Conflict rules

 Philippine Export and Foreign Loan

Guarantee Corp. vs. Eusebio
Constructions GR No. 140047
 Kinds of conflict rules
o One-sided conflict rules
o All-sided conflict rule
Week 13 (Oct. 26-31)
At the end of the 13th week, the
learners are able to:

 Discuss the concept and process of 1. Definition and fundamental concepts of

characterization in conflict of laws; characterization in conflict of laws
and
 Saudi Arabian Airline vs. CA GR no.
 Discuss the different proposed 122191 October 8, 1998- SC
solution to the problem of
characterization. 2. Steps/stages in characterization process

 Concept of point of contact in

characterization process

3. Proposed solution in the problem of

characterization

 Lex fori solution

  Lex causae solution
 Analytic jurisprudence and comparative
law solution
 Totality approach in characterization

Week 14 and Week 15 (Nov. 2- 7)

At the end of week 14th and 15th week,
the learners should be able to:

 Discuss the rules and principles in  Definitions and general principles

the recognition and enforcement of
foreign judgments; and  Recognition vs Enforcement of foreign
judgment
 Discuss specific provisions of
Philippine laws on recognition and o Mijares vs. Ranada GR No. 139325
enforcement of foreign judgments; April 19, 2005

o St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd.,

Vs. Grand International Airways,
Inc., G.R. No. 140288
October 23, 2006

o Hilton vs. Guyot 169 U.S.113

 Instances when local courts will not

recognize foreign judgments

 Rules in proving foreign judgments

 Section 48, Rule 39, Rules of Court

 Rule 132 Section 24 and 25 in Relation to
Section 39, Section 48 (b) of the Rules of
Court.
 Gerbert Corpuz Vs. Daisylyn Tirol Sto
Tomas And The Solgen GR. NO. 186571
 Minoru Fujiki Vs. Maria Paz Galela
Marinay, LCR Of Quezon City, Et Al.,
Case: GR No. 196049 June 26 2013
 Republic Vs. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo Gr
No.221029
 Roehr v. Rodriguez GR No. 142820, June
20, 2003

 Requirements before foreign judgments

maybe recognized

 Recognition of foreign arbitral awards

 Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs.

Court of Appeals GR No. 114323, July 23,
1998

 Tuna Processing v. Kingford GR No.

185582, February 29, 2012

 Repelling foreign judgments

 Grounds for assailing foreign judgments

 A foreign judgment must be proved as a

fact.
 The judgment must not be contrary to a
 sound and established public policy of the
Philippines
 The foreign judgment must pertain to a
civil or commercial matter.
 There must be no lack of jurisdiction, no
want of notice, no collusion, no fraud, no
clear mistake of fact or law (Read Sec.
48, Rule 39, 1997, Rules of Civil
Procedure.)
 The requisites of res judicata must be
present

7. Effects of recognition of foreign judgment

Week 16 and Week 17

At the end of 16th and 17th week, the
students are able to:

 Apply conflict of law rules in conflict 1. Conflict of laws in contractual relations

cases/problems in the areas of
conflict problems involving  Principle of autonomy of contracts
contractual relations, properties o Art. 1306 CC
and torts and damages; and o Bagong Filipino overseas
Corporation v. NLRC GR No. L-
 Discuss the rules and principles in 66006, Feb. 25, 1985
choice of law in the abovementioned o Atienza v. Philmare Shipping 176
areas of law. SCRA 325
o Pakistan international Ariline v.
Blas Ople
o GR No. 61594, September 28, 1990
o The Government Of The Philippine
Islands, Vs. George I. Frank,
defendant-appellant G.R. No. L-
2935 March 23, 1909

 Approaches to choice of law problems in

contractual relations

o Lex Loci Contractus

o Triple Eight Integrated Services Inc.
v. NLRC GR No. 129584, Dec. 3,
1998
o Lex Loci celebrationiis
o State of the most significant
relationship rule

2. Conflict of laws in torts

 Concept of torts in general

 Approaches to conflict problems in torts

o Lex loci delicti or vested rights

doctrine
o Governmental interest analysis
approach
o Choice-influencing considerations
approach
o Lex Fori approach
o Most significant relatioship
approach
 Saudi Airlines v. CA GR No. 122191,
October 8, 1998

3. Conflict of laws in property

 Rule in real property vs. Rule in personal

property
o Art. 16 CC
o Laurel v. Garcia 187 SCRA 797
o Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated GR
No. L-23145, Nov. 29, 1968
o Ramirez v. Vda de Ramirez 111
SCRA 704

Week 18
Final Exams

VI. CONTACT HOURS: 36 hours/semester (18 weeks)

2 hours per week (1 hour per meeting)

VIII. COMPUTATION OF GRADES

Midterms:
Midterms Grade = 60% of Mid-term exam + 40% of Classroom Participation

Classroom participation
Recitation- 15%
Quizzes- 15%
Case Reading Assignments/Digest- 10%

Finals:
Finals Grade = 60% of Finals exam + 40% of Classroom Participation
Finals exam

Classroom participation
Recitation- 15%
Quizzes- 15%
Case Reading Assignments/Digest- 10%

COURSE FINAL GRADE = 50% of Midterms grade + 50% of Finals grade

VIII. RECOMMENDED REFERENCE MATERIALS

1. Elements of Philippine Private International law

By: Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino

2. Review Notes in Conflict of Laws

By: Dean Honorato Y. Aquino

3. Conflict of Laws: Cases, Materials and Comments

By: Jorge R. Coquia and Elizabeth Aguiling- Pangalangan
 4. Conflict of Laws
By: Galahad R.A. Pe Benito

IX. CONTACT AND OTHER INFORMATION

Atty. ROGER L. NAFIANOG

09208093934
nafiroger@gmail.com.

NOTE: The professor reserves the option to modify, lessen, or add cases,
assignments, and topics as he sees fit and as may be needed.