2. Choice of Law

Choice of Law

Concept

Choice of law asks which state’s substantive law governs an issue with a foreign element. It is distinct from jurisdiction, which asks whether a court may hear the case, and from recognition and enforcement, which concerns the effect of a judgment rendered elsewhere. A Philippine court may have jurisdiction yet apply foreign law to the issue before it. (Hasegawa v. Kitamura)

Governing provisions

The Civil Code supplies starting points for identifying the applicable law. Article 15 addresses laws concerning the status, condition, and legal capacity of Filipino citizens. Article 16 concerns property and succession. Article 17 addresses the forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments executed abroad. Article 18 provides a rule for deficiencies in the laws covered by the Code. These provisions operate alongside the characterization of the particular issue in dispute. (Civil Code, Arts. 15–18)

Requisites / Rules

• Identify the foreign element. A party’s nationality, the location of property, the place of an act, or the place of performance may connect the dispute to more than one legal system. (Hasegawa v. Kitamura)
• Characterize the issue. Determine whether the question concerns personal status, property, contractual obligations, the form of an act, a wrongful act, or procedure. The applicable connecting factor depends on the issue, not merely on the case’s general label. (Civil Code, Arts. 15–17)
• Apply the governing connecting factor. The possible links include nationality (lex nationalis), domicile (lex domicilii), the situs of property (lex rei sitae), the law governing a contract (lex contractus), the place of celebration (lex loci celebrationis), the place of a wrongful act (lex loci delicti), the place of performance (lex loci solutionis), and the law of the forum (lex fori). Their relevance turns on the issue and the governing conflict rule. (Civil Code, Arts. 15–17)

Key doctrines

Renvoi arises when a conflict rule points to foreign law and the court must decide whether that reference includes the foreign state’s own conflict rules. Processual presumption addresses a different problem: when the content of applicable foreign law is not adequately pleaded and proved, it may be presumed the same as Philippine law. Neither doctrine replaces the initial task of identifying the applicable law. (Aznar v. Garcia) (EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. v. Magsino)

Bar tip

Separate the court’s power to hear the case from the law governing each issue. One dispute can require different connecting factors for capacity, property, form, obligations, and procedure. (Hasegawa v. Kitamura) (Civil Code, Arts. 15–17)