1. Jurisdiction; Forum Non Conveniens

M. Conflict of Laws (Civil Code, arts. 15-18)

• Jurisdiction; Forum Non Conveniens
• Choice of Law; Doctrine of Renvoi; Doctrine of Processual Presumption
• Lex Nationalii
• Lex Rei Sitae
• Lex Contractus
• Lex Loci Celebrationis
• Lex Domicilii
• Lex Fori
• Lex Loci Delicti
• Lex Loci Solutionis
• Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment

Jurisdiction; Forum Non Conveniens

JURISDICTION Three Stages in Judicial Resolution Of Conflict Problems

• Jurisdiction
• Choice of Law
• Recognition and enforcement of judgments (Raytheon International v. Rouzie, G.R. No. 162894, 2008)

Major Questions in Analyzing a Conflict of Laws Problem

• Jurisdiction - where can or should litigation be initiated?
• Choice of law - which law will the court apply?
• Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments - where can the resulting judgment be enforced? (Hasegawa vs. Kitamura, G.R. No. 149177, 2007)

Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter

• Power to hear and determine cases of general class to which the proceedings in question belong.
• It is conferred by the sovereign authority, which organizes the courts and defines it powers.
• Jurisdiction over subject matter is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by consent of the parties or their voluntary submission. (Davao Light v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111685 2001)
• 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. (Hasegawa vs. Kitamura, G.R. No. 149177, 2007)

Jurisdiction Over Persons

It is the competence of a court to render decision that will bind the parties to the suit.

Jurisdiction Over the Res

Jurisdiction over the res is the court’s authority over the property or status that is the object of the action. It is distinct from jurisdiction over the subject matter, which is conferred by law. It may be classified as follows:

• Action in Rem - purpose is to affect the interests of all persons in a thing, thus the court of the forum may render judgment as long as it has jurisdiction over the res.
• Quasi in Rem - purpose is to affect interests of particular persons in a thing or status, thus the court of the forum may render judgment as long as it has jurisdiction over the res and affords affected persons notice and due process.
• Action in Personam - purpose is to impose personal liability upon the defendant

Note: In all kinds of jurisdiction, due process requires that the State must have a reasonable basis for exercising jurisdiction; to be reasonable the jurisdiction must be based on some minimum contacts that will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (Salonga, Private International Law, p. 44, 1995).

Where to file

File in a court with subject-matter jurisdiction under the applicable law. Subject to applicable exceptions, venue for a real action is where the property or a portion of it is situated; venue for a personal action is where the plaintiff or any principal plaintiff, or the defendant or any principal defendant, resides, at the plaintiff’s election (Rules of Court, Rule 4, Sections 1–3, as amended by the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure).

Minimum Contacts

The concept of minimum contacts protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum and it acts to ensure that the States, through their courts, do not reach out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns. (World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson, 1980)

One basic principle underlies all rules of jurisdiction in international law, a state does not have jurisdiction in the absence of some reasonable basis for exercising it. To be reasonable, the jurisdiction must be based on some minimum contacts that will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (HSBC v. Sherman, G.R. No. 72494, 1989)

A casual presence of a corporation or its agent in a state in single or isolated incidents is not enough to establish jurisdiction. The activities of its agents in transacting business for the corporation in the forum state are minimum contacts that make it reasonable and in conformity with the due process clause. The activities of the corporation in the state were systematic and continuous rather that irregular or casual, which resulted in large volume interstate business. The corporation received the benefits and protection of the laws of the state, and therefore established the minimum contacts to be under their jurisdiction. (International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 1945)

Choice of Forum

While the parties are free to select the forum for resolving disputes by way of a choice of forum clause, said clause does not operate to deny or divest jurisdiction from the State. (HSBC v. Sherman, G.R. No. 72494, 1989).

Specifically, this jurisdiction only refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding. It is fixed by law and determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. (Hasegawa vs. Kitamura, G.R. No. 149177, 2007)

Although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another by agreement of the parties in writing, such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates the action of the claimants. (Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Teves, G.R. No. L-37750, 1978)

Test to Determine Most Convenient Forum

A Philippine court must first have jurisdiction conferred by law. In deciding whether to exercise that jurisdiction in a conflict-of-laws case, it may consider whether:

• The forum is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;
• The forum is in the position as to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and
• The forum has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision (Principle of Effectiveness). (The Manila Hotel Corporation v. NLRC, GR No. 120077, 2000)

Choice of Law; Doctrine of Renvoi; Doctrine of Processual Presumption

Choice of law - deals with the problem that arises when two or more states have a connection to cases about which their respective laws differ. Each court must then choose which laws to apply based on choice of law rules that themselves rest on public policy.

Choice of Law seeks to answer two important questions:

• What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and
• To what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation (Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA, GR No. 122191, 1998).

Lex Nationalii

Law 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.

Lex Rei Sitae

Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. (Art. 16, NCC)

Lex situs rule - real property as well as personal property is generally subject to the law of the country where situated; however, the order of intestate and testamentary succession, the amount of successional rights, and the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions are governed by the decedent's national law, whatever the nature of the property and regardless of where it is located. (Art.16)

Lex Contractus

Lex contractus is a legal principle referring to the law that governs a contract. This principle determines which jurisdiction's laws will apply to interpret, enforce, and resolve disputes arising from a contract. The parties involved in a contract typically select the applicable law, but in the absence of such a choice, the law is determined based on various factors.

Lex Loci Celebrationis

Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. (Art. 16, NCC) 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. (Art. 17, NCC)

Lex Domicilii

Lex Fori

Lex Loci Delicti

Lex Loci Solutionis

Doctrine of Renvoi

Renvoi literally means “referring back.” The problem arises when there is a doubt as to whether a reference to a foreign law is a reference to the internal law of said foreign law; or a reference to the whole of the foreign law, including its conflict rules. (Rabuya, 2009)

Doctrine of Processual Presumption

Also known as Presumed-identity approach; where a foreign law is not pleaded, or even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that the foreign law is the same as Philippine Laws.

In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic or forum law. (ATCI Overseas Corporation, et al. v. Echin, G.R. No. 178551, October 11, 2010; See case of Del Socorro v. Wilsem G.R. No. 193707 December 10, 2014)

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment

Jurisdiction of the Courts

GR: Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be compromised by the parties.

Other Grounds for Review

• Fatal infirmity of the decision for want of due process
• Lack of jurisdiction of the court