JMC COLLEGE OF LAW

COURSE SYLLABUS

Course Title: Conflict of Laws (Private International Law)

Professor: Atty. Kristine Mae M. Quibod, EnP

No. of Units: 2

Semester/SY: 2nd Semester (2019-2020)

I. COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES

The course will tackle prevailing principles and jurisprudence relative to Private
International Law. It will focus on conflict of laws rules found under the Civil Code and other
Philippine laws.

The overview of the general principles of Conflict of Laws will be followed by a thorough
discussion of different areas including procedural law, family law, contracts, and torts among
others.

II. LEARNING OUTCOMES

Upon completion of this course, students will be able to:

a. Learn and understand the general principles of private international law and the
different areas of conflict of laws such as jurisdiction, family law, torts and
contracts.

b. Understand the effects of foreign judgment and the procedures on how to

recognize and enforce foreign judgments within Philippine Jurisdiction.

III. TEACHING METHODOLOGY

The modified Socratic Method or question and answer system shall be the principal
method of instruction to enable students to think clearly under pressure, learn to
analyze problem situations and develop in them a critical attitude towards the subject
matter being discussed.

Every meeting, the students will be called to recite within the assigned topic and cases,
and the professor shall amplify/ supplement what has been recited by the students.

IV. COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING SYSTEM

Course Requirements Grade Breakdown

Recitation 15%
Attendance and Quizzes 15%
Exam 70%
V. COURSE POLICIES

1. The JMC College of law requires compliance with the highest standards of academic
performance, personal integrity, and self-discipline.
2. Students shall come to class decently dressed in appropriate attire. Informal or house
attire (i.e., shorts, undershirts, pajamas, flip-flop slippers, et.) is absolutely prohibited.
3. Attendance will be checked at the start of every class. The Law School’s rules and
regulations on attendance apply. Since this is a 2-unit subject, students are allowed only
a maximum of 7 hours allowable absences. (If a student is absent for one meeting, it
means that he/she is absent for 2 hours already.) Tardiness for 15 minutes is considered
absence.
4. The professor is a government employee, who, in the exigencies of service may be
required to attend to official functions any time and any day of the week. The students are
advised to wait for the professor unless prior advice is given that there shall be no class.
A make-up class shall then be scheduled to a later date.
5. Step out of the class if you need to use your mobile phone which should always be in
silent mode. Use of mobile phones during class is highly discouraged.
6. Frequent going out of the classroom for an unreasonable period of time, to eat, do errands
or attend to personal matters is highly discouraged and may be a ground for absence.
7. Students are encouraged to write down their notes during class discussion hence students
are not allowed to take photographs of the professor’s PowerPoint presentations.
8. Laptops and similar gadgets may be used for taking down notes or researching for class
however, it shall not be used or referred to during oral recitation.
9. Special Exams are for highly meritorious cases only. The student shall put into writing their
request for special exam which shall be addressed and approved by both the Dean of the
College of Law and the professor.

VI. COURSE OUTLINE

Weeks 1 and 2:
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

I. INTRODUCTION TO CONFLICT OF LAWS

a. Definition
b. Elements
c. Foreign System of Law
d. Importance of Conflict of Laws
e. Scope/Functions of Conflict of Laws
f. How/Why Conflict of Law is observed
g. Different Names given to the subject
h. Defects in the term “Conflict of Laws”
i. Conflict of Laws vs. Law of Nations
CASES:
1. Donald Baer Commander vs Tito Tizon GR. L-24294 (1974)

j. Sources of Conflict of Laws

CASES:
1. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals Gr No. 122191 8 Oct 1998

II. WHAT TRIBUNALS OF THE FORUM MUST DO

a. Jurisdiction
CASES:
1. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals GR 122191 8 Oct 1998
2. Hasegawa v. Kitamura GR 149177 Nov 23, 2007
3. Navida v. Dizon, G.R. Nos. 125078, 125598, 126654, 127856 & 128398, [May 30,
2011], 664 PHIL 283-336)

2
 4. (Continental Micronesia, Inc. v. Basso, G.R. Nos. 178382-83, [September 23,
2015])

b. Jurisdiction in International Law

c. Jurisdiction in Conflict of Laws
d. Kinds of Jurisdiction
e. Jurisdiction, how acquired (Rules of Court)
CASES:
How acquired:
1. Northwest Orient v. Court of Appeals GR 112573 9 Feb 1995
2. Valmonte v. Court of Appeals GR. 108538 22 Jan 1996
3. Asiavest v. Court of Appeals GR. 128803 25 Sep 1998
4. Banco du Brazil v. Court of Appeals GR. 121576 16 Jun 2000
5. Romualdes v. Licaros GR. 150656 29 Apr 2003
6. Gomez v. Court of Appeals GR. 127692 10 Mar 2004
7. St. Aviation v. Grand Air GR. 140288 23 Oct 2006
8. Pioneer v. Guadiz GR. 156848 Oct 11, 2007
9. Regner v. Logarta GR. 168747 Oct 19, 2007
10. September 23, 2015||| (Continental Micronesia, Inc. v. Basso, G.R. Nos.
178382-83, [September 23, 2015])

Jurisdiction over Foreign Corporations

11. MR Holdings v. Bajar GR. 138104 11 Apr 2002
12. Hahn v. CA and BMW GR. 113074 23 Jan 1997
13. European v. Ingenieuburo Birkhan GR. 159586 26 Jul 2004
14. Agilent v. Integrated Silicon GR. 154618 14 Apr 2004
15. Pioneer v. Guadiz GR. 156848 Oct 11, 2007
16. G.R. Nos. 178382-83. September 23, 201||| (Continental Micronesia, Inc. v.
Basso, G.R. Nos. 178382-83, [September 23, 2015])
17. Express Padala (Italia) v. Ocampo , G.R. No. 202505, [September 6, 2017])

Weeks 3:
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

f. Refusal to assume jurisdiction: Forum Non Conveniens

g. Basis of the REFUSAL to Assume Jurisdiction:
h. Factors That May Make the Forum Inconvenient
i. Manifestation of Forum Non Conveniens
j. Application of the Principle
k. Principle of Effectiveness
CASES:
1. Manila Hotel v. NLRC GR 120077 13 Oct 2000
2. Puyat v. Zabarte GR 141536 26 Feb 2001
3. Pioneer v. Guadiz GR 156848 Oct 11, 2007
4. Raytheon v. Rouzie GR 162894 26 Feb 2008
5. Hasegawa v. Kitamura GR 149177 23 Nov 2007
6. Bank of America v. Court of Appeals GR 120135 21 Mar 2003
7. Philsec Investment v. Court of Appeals GR 103493 June 19, 1997
8. Philippine National Construction Corp. v. Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad,
G.R. No. 172301, [August 19, 2015])
9. Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) v. Rebesencio, G.R. No. 198587, [January 14,
2015])
10. (Continental Micronesia, Inc. v. Basso, G.R. Nos. 178382-83, [September 23,
2015])
11. (Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) v. Rebesencio, G.R. No. 198587, [January 14,
2015])
12. (Spouses Dalen v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, G.R. No. 194403, [July 24, 2019])

3
 l. Assumption of Jurisdiction

III. CHOICE OF LAW

Week 4:
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

a. 3 Instances where the forum has to apply the internal or domestic law (lex fori) in
adjudicating a conflicts problem set before it
CASES:
1. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals GR 122191 8 Oct 1998
2. Philippine Export v. Eusebio GR 140047 13 Jul 2004
3. Crescent v. M/V Lok Maheswari GR 155014 11 Nov 2005
4. LWV Construction v. Dupo GR. 172342 13 Jul 2009
5. Deutsche v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 152318 2009
6. ATCI v. Echin G.R 178551 Oct 11, 2010
7. Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) v. Rebesencio, G.R. No. 198587, [January 14,
2015])
8. September 23, 2015||| (Continental Micronesia, Inc. v. Basso, G.R. Nos. 178382-
83, [September 23, 2015])

a. Proof of Foreign Law

CASES:
1. Williamette v. Muzzal G.R. No. L-42538 May 21, 1935
2. CIR v. Fisher G.R. No. L-11622 January 28, 1961
3. PCIB v. Escolin G.R. Nos. L-27860 March 29, 1974
4. Laureano v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 114776 February 2, 2000
5. Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales G.R. No. L-55960 November 24, 1988
6. Wildvalley v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 119602 October 6, 2000
7. In re Estate of Suntay G.R. Nos. L-3087 July 31, 1954
8. Dumez Company v. NLRC GR. 74495 11 Jul 1996
9. Asiavest v. Court of Appeals GR. 128803 25 Sep 1998
10. Manufacturers Hanover v. Guerrero GR. 136804 19 Feb 2003
11. ATCI v. Echin GR. 178551 11 Oct 2010
12. Cuartocruz v. Active Works, Inc., G.R. No. 209072, [July 24, 2019])

Week 5:
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

b. How A Proved Foreign Law must be Interpreted by Our Courts

c. Effect of Failure to Plead or Prove Foreign Law – Options Available to the Court
d. Processual Presumption
CASES:
1. Northwest Airlines v. Court of Appeals GR 112573 9 Feb 1995
2. Laureano v. Court of Appeals GR 114776 Feb 2, 2000
3. Philippine Export v. Eusebio GR. 140047 13 Jul 2004
4. EDI-Staffbuilders v. NLRC GR. 145587 26 Oct 2007
5. (Philippine National Construction Corp. v. Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad,
G.R. No. 172301, [August 19, 2015])
6. G.R. No. 193782. August 1, 2018||| (Strickland v. Ernst & Young LLP, G.R. Nos.
193782 & 210695, [August 1, 2018])
7. Nullada v. Civil Registrar of Manila, G.R. No. 224548, [January 23, 2019])
8. (Cuartocruz v. Active Works, Inc., G.R. No. 209072, [July 24, 2019])
9. Arreza v. Toyo, G.R. No. 213198, [July 1, 2019])

e. Exceptions to the Application of the Proper Foreign Law (Exceptions to the

application of Comity)

4
 CASES:
1. Cadalin v. POEA G.R. No. L-104776 Dec 5, 1994
2. Pakistani Airlines v. Ople G.R. No. 61594 Sept 28, 1990
3. Bank of America v. American Realty GR. 133876 29 Dec 1999

f. When Foreign Law May Be Applied

g. Theories On Why The Foreign Law May In Some Cases Be Given Effect
1. Theory of Comity
2. Theory of Vested Rights
3. Theory of Local Law
4. Theory of Harmony of Laws
Week 6
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

IV. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT

a. Recognition and enforcement of Foreign Judgment Distinguished

b. Reasons why not all foreign judgments can be recognized or enforced in our
country
c. Conditions and requisites before foreign judgments may be recognized and
enforced in the Philippines
d. Enforcement of Foreign Judgment

CASES:
1. Nagarmull v. Binalbagan GR. L-22470 28 May 1970
2. Northwest Airlines v. Court of Appeals GR. 112573 9 Feb 1995
3. Philsec Investment v. Court of Appeals GR. 103493 19 Jun 1997
4. Asiavest v. Court of Appeals GR. 128803 25 Sep 1998
5. Philippine Aluminum v. FASGI G.R. No. 137378 October 12, 2000
6. St. Aviation v. Grand Air GR. 140288 23 Oct 2006
7. Korea Technologies v. Lerma GR. 143581 07 Jan 2008
8. Corpus v. Sto. Tomas GR. 186571 11 Aug 2010
9. Landoil v. Al Rabiah GR. 174720 11 Sep 2011
10. Oil & Natural Gas v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 114323 July 23, 1998]
11. Puyat v. Zabarte GR. 141536 26 Feb 2001
12. Mijares v. Ranada GR.139325 12 Apr 2005
13. Dacasin v. Dacasin GR. 168785 05 Feb 2010
14. (Juego-Sakai v. Republic, G.R. No. 224015, [July 23, 2018])
15. Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. v. Yi, G.R. No. 234501, [March 18, 2019])
16. (Arreza v. Toyo, G.R. No. 213198, [July 1, 2019])

---------------------------------------end of coverage for Prelim Exam-----------------------------------

Week 7:
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

V. NATURE OF CONFLICT RULES

a. Nature of conflicts Rules

b. Examples of Conflict Rules
c. Purely Internal Rules vs A Conflicts Rule
d. Kinds of Conflicts Rules
e. Composition of Conflict Rules
CASES:
1. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals GR. 122191 8 Oct 1998

5
 VI. CHARACTERIZATION OF CONFLICT RULES

a. What is Characterization?
b. Factors which give rise to the problem of characterization
c. Steps in Characterization
d. Theories On Characterization
1. The Lex Fori Theory
2. The Lex Causae Theory
3. The Universal Analytical Theory (Comparative Approach Theory)
4. The Dual Theory of Lex Fori and Lex Causae
5. The Autonomous Theory
6. The Totality Theory
1. Gibbs v. Government G.R. No. L-35694 December 23, 1933
2. Cadalin v. POEA GR. 104776 5 Dec 1994

Weeks 8 and 9:
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

VII. PERSONAL STATUS AND CAPACITY

a. Status
b. Capacity
c. Universal recognition of system of personal law
d. Defects
e. Scope and Coverage of Personal Law
f. Theories on Personal Status and Capacity

VIII. NATIONALITY THEORY

a. What is the Nationality Theory?

CASES:
1. Ellis v. RP GR L-16922 30 Apr 1963

b. Nationality vs Citizenship
c. Determination of Nationality
CASES:
1. Board of Immigration v. Callano GR L-24530 31 Oct 196

d. Defects of the Nationality Theory

e. The Three Kinds of Citizens of the Philippines
CASES:
1. Aznar v. Comelec G.R. No. 83820May 25, 1990
2. AASJS v. Datumanong G.R. No. 160869 May 11, 2007
3. Tecson vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 161434. March 3, 2004
4. Co vs. HRET (July 30,1991) G.R. Nos. 92191-92 July 30, 1991
5. Bengzon vs HRET [G.R. No. 142840. May 7, 2001]
6. Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 221697 & 221698-
700, [March 8, 2016])

f. Two Theories on Whether place or ancestry determines citizenship

g. How Citizenship is acquired/lost/reacquired
CASES:
How Filipino citizenship is ACQUIRED
1. Ngo Burca v. RP GR L-24252 Jan 30, 1967
2. Mo Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner GR L-21289 04 Oct 1971
3. Lee v. Commissioner GR L-23446 20 Dec 1971
4. Djumantan v. Domingo G.R. No. 99358 Jan30, 1995

6
 5. Oh Hek How v. Republic GR L-27429 27 Aug 1969
6. RP v. Sayo GR. 61565 20 Aug 1990
7. RP v. Valencia GR. L-32181 05 Mar 1986
How Filipino citizenship is LOST
8. Board v. Callano GR L-24530 Oct 31, 1968
9. Yu v. Defensor Santiago G.R. No. L-83882 Jan 24, 1989
10. Coquilla v. Comelec G.R. No. 151914. July 31, 2002
11. Valles v. Comelec GR. 137000 09 Aug 2000
How Filipino citizenship Reacquired
12. RP v. Dela Rosa G.R. No. 104654 June 6, 1994
13. Labo v. Comelec G.R. No. 86564 Aug 1, 1989
14. Labo v. Comelec G.R. No. 105111 July 3, 1992
15. Frivaldo v. Comelec G.R. No. 120295 June 28, 1996
16. Petition, Benjamin Dacacay BM 1678 Dec 17, 2007

h. Statelessness
CASES:
1. Kookooritchkin v. Sol Gen GR L-1812 27 Aug 1948
2. (Koh v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-40428, [December 17, 1975], 160-A
PHIL 1034-1045)
3. Saludo, Jr. v. American Express International, Inc., G.R. No. 159507, [April 19,
2006], 521 PHIL 585-605

Week 10:
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

IX. DOMICILIARY THEORY

a. What is the Domiciliary Theory?

b. Defects of the theory
c. Citizenship vs. Domicile
d. Residence vs. Domicile
e. Definition of Domicile
f. Three Kinds of Domicile
g. Rules For Domicile of Choice
h. Fundamental Principles governing domicile of Choice
CASES:
1. Aquino v. Comelec GR 120265 18 Sep 1995
2. Marcos v. Comelec G.R. No. 119976 Sep 18, 1995
3. Domino v. Comelec GR 134015 19 Jul 1999
4. Jao v. CA GR. 128314 29 May 2002
5. Romualdez v. RTC G.R. No. 104960 Sep 14, 1993
6. Jalosjos vs COMELEC GR No. 191970 April 24, 2012
7. Caasi vs COMELEC G.R. No. 88831 November 8, 1990
8. San Luis vs San Luis G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007
9. Dano v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 210200, [September 13, 2016])

Week 11:
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

X. THE PROBLEM OF RENVOI

a. Renvoi, Definition.
b. How does the problem of Renvoi arise?
c. Transmission
CASES:
1. (Llorente v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124371, [November 23, 2000], 399
PHIL 342-357)

7
 2. Aznar v. Christensen-Garcia GR L-16749 31 Jan 1963
3. Bellis v. Bellis GR L-23678 6 Jun 1967
4. Miciano v. Brimo GR 22595 01 Nov 1924
5. (Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Escolin, G.R. Nos. L-27860 & L-
27896, L-27937, [March 29, 1974], 155 PHIL 228-400)

Week 12:
XI. PERSONAL STATUS AND CAPACITY

a. Article 15 of the Civil Code

b. Article 1of the Treaty of Montevideo on International Law
c. Judicial vs Legislative Jurisdiction
d. Beginning of Personality.
e. Age of Majority
f. Absence
g. End Of Personality
CASES:
1. Mercado v. Espiritu GR L-11872 01 Dec 1917
2. Bambalan v. Maramba GR 27710 30 Jan 1928
3. Suan v. Alcantara GR L-1720 04 Mar 1950
4. Recto v. Harden GR L-6897 29 Nov 1956
5. Jimenez v. Republic GR L-12790 31 Aug 1960
6. Geluz v. Court of Appeals GR L-16439 20 Jul 1961
7. Gibbs v. Government GR 35694 23 Dec 1933

Week 13:
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

XII. MARRIAGE AND ITS INCIDENTS

a. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Validity

b. Theories
c. Marriage as a Contract
d. Marriage as a Status
e. Property Relations of the Husband and Wife
f. Annulment
g. Governing laws whether the marriage is extrinsically or intrinsically valid
h. Absolute Divorce
i. Rules on Absolute Divorce
j. Legal Separation
CASES:
1. Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera GR 80116 30 Jun 1989
2. Republic v. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, [September 21, 2005], 507 PHIL 485-
508)
3. RP v. Orbecido GR 154380 5 Oct 2005
4. Bayot v. CA, Bayot GR 155635 7 Nov 2008
5. Dacasin v. Dacasin GR 168785 05 Feb 2010
6. Corpuz vs Sto. Tomas G.R. No. 186571 11 Aug 2010
7. Fujiki vs Marinay G.R. No. 196049 June 26, 2013
8. G.R. No. 215723||| (Medina v. Koike, G.R. No. 215723, [July 27, 2016])
9. (Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, [April 24, 2018])
10. Morisono vs. Morisono, G.R. No. 226013, (July 2, 2018)
11. (Juego-Sakai v. Republic, G.R. No. 224015, [July 23, 2018])
12. Nullada v. Civil Registrar of Manila, G.R. No. 224548, [January 23, 2019])
13. Arreza v. Toyo, G.R. No. 213198, [July 1, 2019])

8
 Week 14:
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

XIII. PATERNITY AND FILIATION, ADOPTION

a. Paternity
b. Filiation
c. Legitimacy
d. Legitimation
e. Adoption

CASES:
1. Ching Leng v. Galang GR L-11931 27 Oct 1958
2. Republic v. CA GR 100835 26 Oct 1993
3. Republic v. Toledano GR 94147 08 Jun 1994
4. RP v. Miller GR 125932 21 Apr 1999
5. In re: Adoption of Michelle Lim GR 168992 21 May 2009
6. Ramirez Mercaida vs Aglubat G.R. No. L-24006 November 25, 1967

f. Guardianship

CASES:
1. (Viloria v. Administrator of Veterans Affairs, G.R. No. L-9620, [June 28, 1957], 101
PHIL 762-766)

g. Funerals
-------------------------------------------end of Coverage for MidTerm Exam ------------------------------------

Week 15
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

XIV. REAL and PERSONAL PROPERTY

a. Lex Rei Sitae

b. Issues covered by Lex Rei Sitae
c. Lex Situs
d. Issues covered by Lex Situs
e. Movable and Immovable Property
f. Choses

CASES:
1. Laurel Vs Garcia. G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990
2. CIR Vs Anglo-California Bank GR L-12476 JAN 29, 1960
3. Tayag vs Benguet Consolidated G.R. No. L-23145 Nov 29, 1968
4. Ramirez vs vda. De Ramirez G.R. No. L-27952 Feb 15, 1982
5. Llantino vs Co Liong Chiong G.R. No. L-29663 August 20, 1990
6. Orion Savings Bank v. Shigekane Suzuki, G.R. No. 205487, [November
12, 2014])

Week 16
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

XV. WILLS AND SUCCESSION

a. Intrinsic Validity of a Will

b. Conflicts Rules on Extrinsic Validity

9
 c. Rule 77 Section 3 Rules of Court
d. Probate of a Will
e. Interpretation of Wills
f. Joint Wills
g. Revocation of Wills
h. Change of Nationality of Testator
i. Rules of Administration

CASES:
1. Estate of Bohanan v. Bohanan
2. Bellis v. Bellis
3. Aznar v. Garcia
4. Vda de Perez vs Tolete
5. Johannes vs Harvey
6. Suntay vs Suntay
7. Cayetano vs Leonidas
8. Ancheta vs Guersey-Dalaygon
9. Miciano vs Brimo
10. Palaganas v. Palaganas, G.R. No. 169144, [January 26, 2011], 655 PHIL
535-541)
G.R. No. L-12105 Jan 30, 1960
G.R. No. L-23678 June 6, 1967
G.R. No. L-16749 Jan 31, 1963
G.R. No. 76714 June 2, 1994
G.R. No. 18600 March 9, 1922
G.R. Nos. L-3087 July 31, 1954
G.R. No. L-54919 May 30, 1984
G.R. No. 139868 June 8, 2006
G.R. No. L-22595 Nov 1, 1927

Week 17
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

XVI. OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

a. Definition of Contracts
b. Elements of a Contract
c. Lex Loci Celebrationis
d. Lex Loci Contractus
e. Limitations and principles in the Choice of Law
f. Depecage
CASES:
1. Insular Government vs. Frank GR L-2935 Mar 23, 1909
2. Norse Management vs National Seamen GR L-54204 Sep 30, 1982
3. United Airlines vs CA GR 124110 April 20, 2001
4. Bagong Filipinas vs NLRC GR L-66006 Feb 28, 1985
5. Atienza vs Philimare Shipping GR 71604 Aug 11, 1989
6. Pakistan International vs Blas Ople GR 61594 Sept 28, 1990
7. (PCL Shipping Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 153031, [December 14, 2006], 540 PHIL 65-85)
8. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139,
[August 5, 2014])
9. (Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) v. Rebesencio, G.R. No. 198587, [January
14, 2015])
10. (Industrial Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. De Vera, G.R. No.
205703, [March 7, 2016])
11. (Cuartocruz v. Active Works, Inc., G.R. No. 209072, [July 24, 2019])

Week 18:
Activity: Recitation and Class Discussion

XVII. TORTS AND DAMAGES

a. Elements of a Tort
b. Lex loci delicti comisii/ Locus Delicti
c. Theories to determine the locus delicti
d. Issues governed by the Locus Delicti
e. Collision

10
 CASES:
1. Saudi Arabian vs Court of Appeals GR 1221918 Oct 1998
2. Suzara vs. Benipayo, G.R. No. L-57999, Aug. 15, 1989
3. Mapa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122308, [July 8, 1997], 341 PHIL 281-
299)
4. Navida v. Dizon, G.R. Nos. 125078, 125598, 126654, 127856 & 128398,
[May 30, 2011], 664 PHIL 283-336)
5. (Spouses Dalen v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, G.R. No. 194403, [July 24, 2019])

f. Warsaw Convention
g. Liability of Aircrafts
CASES:
1. Santos III vs. Northwest Orient Airlines, G.R. No. 101538, June 23, 1992
2. Sabena Belgian World Airlines vs. CA, G.R. No. 104685, March 14, 1996
3. Northwest Airlines vs. CA, G.R. No. 120334, Jan. 20, 1998
4. Japan Airlines vs. CA, G.R. No. 118664, Aug. 7, 1998
5. United Airlines vs. Uy, G.R. No. 127768, Nov. 19, 1999
6. Zalamea vs. CA, G.R. No. 104235, Nov. 18, 1993

XVIII. CRIMES

a. Theories on Extraterritorial Competence

b. English Rule vs. French Rule
CASES:
1. Asalli vs Commissioner of Customs GR L-24170 Dec 16, 1968
2. People vs Wong Cheng GR L-18924 Oct 19, 1922

VII. REFERENCES AND OTHER MATERIALS

1. Philippine Conflict of Laws –E. L. Paras

2. Conflict of Laws –G. P. Benito
3. Private International Law –J. R. Salonga
4. Conflict of Laws – Sempio-Dy
5. Conflict of Laws – R.E. Agpalo
6. Conflict of Laws – M.R. Suarez

VIII. CONTACT AND OTHER INFORMATION

 Email Address: tinquibod.addulaw@gmail.com

 Consultation schedule: after class or on appointment

11