CONFLICT OF LAWS

Atty. Janice C. Regoso

I. Essay Questions. Do not repeat the facts. A Yes or No answer without a legal basis
will not be given any point.

1. Minoru is a Japanese national who married Paz in the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The
marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Minoru could not bring his wife to Japan
where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with each other. In 2008, Paz met another
Japanese, Ronin. Without the first marriage being dissolved, Paz and Ronin were married on 15
May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Ronin brought Paz to Japan. However, Paz allegedly
suffered physical abuse from Ronin. She left Ronin and started to contact Minoru. Minoru and
Paz met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship.

In 2010, Minoru helped Paz obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the
marriage between Paz and Ronin void on the ground of bigamy.On 14 January 2011, Minoru
filed a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of
Absolute Nullity of Marriage)." He prayed that (1) the Japanese Family Court judgment be
recognized; (2) that the bigamous marriage between Paz and Ronin be declared void ab initio
under Articles 35(4) and 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

Under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages, only the husband or the wife may file such action for nullity. Because the case was
filed by Minoru who was neither the husband nor the wife of present case, the court denied the
petition.

a. Will the suit prosper?

No, the suit will not prosper.
The Rule on the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages provides that a
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages may be filed solely by the husband or
the wife.
In this case, Minoru is neither the husband or the wife.
b. Should the petition be denied because the petitioner was not the proper party?
Yes, the petition should be denied since the petitioner was not the proper party.
The law provides that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages may be
filed solely by the husband or the wife.
In this case, Minoru is neither the husband or the wife.

2. Maria and Pedro were married in the Philippines in 1990. One year after the marriage, Pedro
and Maria decided to separate from each other due to irreconcilable differences. Later, Pedro
and Maria migrated to the US. There, Pedro fell in love with another Filipino citizen, Clara, the
first cousin of Maria. Clara was married to another Filipino, Julian, the brother of Pedro. Julian
divorced Clara in the US when Clara was already a naturalized US citizen he divorced Maria
and married Clara. Maria fell in love with Julian. May she validly marry Julian in the US?
Yes, Maria may validly marry Julian in the US. As both already a US citizen and they’ve
already acquired divorce over their previous marriages, under the US Law, Maria and Julian
may validly marry each other.

3. Mina, a former Filipina who became an Australian citizen shortly after her marriage to an
Australian husband, would like to adopt in the Philippines, jointly with her husband, one of her
minor sisters. Assuming that all the required consents have been obtained, could the
contemplated joint adoption in the Philippines prosper?
No, the joint adoption will not prosper in the Philippines.
The law provides that no court may entertain adopting proceeding unless it has jurisdiction,
not only over the subject matter of the case and over the parties, but also over the res, which is
personal status of the person to be adopted as well as the adopter. Article 15 of the Civil Code
adheres to the theory that jurisdiction over the status of a natural person is determined by the
latter’s nationality which is Philippine Law if the person to be adopted is a Filipino citizen. In Ellis
vs Republic, the court held that if the person adopting is an alien who is not domiciled in the
 Philippines, he cannot adopt because he is non-resident foreign, over whose personal status the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
In this case, Philippine court cannot assume jurisdiction over Mina since she and her
husband is a non-resident.

4. A is a Filipina and B is a Canadian who is the first cousin of A. first cousins are allowed to get
married in Canada. A and B got married in Canada.
a. Is the marriage in Canada between A and B valid?
Yes, the marriage is valid in Canada.
The law on marriage under the Canadian Law allowed first cousins to marry each other.
Hence, the marriage between A and B is valid.
b. Suppose A and B got married in the Philippines, will your answer be different?
No, the marriage is not valid in the Philippines.
The law provides that a marriage may be declared absolutely null and void for the
reasons of public policy when it is contracted between collateral blood relatives whether
legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree.
In this case, B is the first cousin of A. Hence, their marriage is not valid in the Philippines.

5. Two Filipinos get married in Argentina. Assume that homosexuality is a ground for annulment
of marriage in Argentina but not in the Philippines.
a. May the marriage be annulled on the ground of homosexuality?
No, the marriage cannot be annulled on the ground of homosexuality.
The Philippine law provides that action for annulment of marriage depends upon the
nationality or domicile of the parties, not the place of celebration of the marriage.
In this case, both are of Filipino citizenship, hence the Philippine law shall apply.
b. Does the Philippines have jurisdiction to try and hear the case?
Yes, the Philippines have jurisdiction to try and hear the case.
The law provides that jurisdiction over an action for annulment of marriage depends upon
the nationality or domicile of the parties, not the place of celebration of the marriage.
In this case, both are of Filipino citizenship, hence the Philippines has jurisdiction over the
parties.
c. Does Argentina have jurisdiction to try and hear the case?
No, Argentina have no jurisdiction to try and hear the case.
The Philippine law provides that action for annulment of marriage depends upon the
nationality or domicile of the parties, not the place of celebration of the marriage.
In this case, both are of Filipino citizenship, hence the Philippine law shall apply.

II. Choose the best answer. In not more than two sentences, explain your answer.

1. Family rights and duties are those which arise from family relations, and include the following
except:

a. Parent and child

b. Among ascendants and their descendants
c. Among brothers in law and sisters in law, the family relations include those: 1. Between
husband and wife; 2. Between parents and children; 3. Among brothers and sisters, whether of
the full or half blood.
d. Husband and wife

2. Formal aspect of marriage is governed by the

a. Nationality principle, the national law of a citizen of the country follows him or her,
anywhere he or she may be.
b. Domiciliary principle
c. Lex loci celebrationis
d. Law agreed by the parties
 3. The principle which states that original personal law of the parties at the time of marriage
continues to govern all property including subsequently acquired property, regardless of a later
change in domicile or nationality is called:

a. Doctrine of Nationality or Domiciliary

b. Theory of Property Incorporation
c. Doctrine of Immutability of Property Regime, the change of nationality on the part of the
husband and wife does not affect the original property regime except when the law of the
original nationality itself changes the marital regime, hence, the property regime has to change.
d. Theory of Vested Rights

4. Laws relating to status, capacity, and condition of a person are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines:

a. When they are in the Philippines.

e. Whenever they may be in the Philippines or abroad, the national law of a citizen of the
country follows him or her, anywhere he or she may be.

b. Whenever they are in the Philippine embassies abroad by reason of the principle of
extra- territoriality.
c. While in the Philippines, when their parents are Filipino citizens even though born in
the United States.

5. A and B are Canadian spouses with a permanent residence in Vancouver but they have
properties situated in Quezon City. What system of property relation governs their properties?

a. The Civil code of the Philippines

b. The Family Code, it is the basic law covering persons and family relations, governs
marriages, legal separations, property relations between spouses, and parental authority among
others.
c. Their National Law
d. None of the Above

6. Robert successfully filed a petition for divorce in Nevada, U.S.A., from his wife, Maria, a
Filipino citizen, capacitating him to remarry. Is the divorce valid and binding on Maria,
capacitating to remarry?

a) Yes, since the divorce capacitated Robert to remarry. The divorce validly obtained by a
foreigner in his country or in the country which grants divorce, who is married to a Filipino
citizen is recognized
b) No, because Philippine laws which prohibit divorce as a matter of public policy, continue
to be binding on Maria, a Filipino citizen, even if living abroad.
c) Yes, if Maria remarries in the U.S.A.; no, if Maria remarries in the Philippines.
d) Yes, under the principle of “comity,” pursuant to international law.

7. Glenda, a Filipino citizen and John Reil, an Australian citizen, got married in the consular
office of the Philippines in Australia. According to the laws of Australia, a marriage solemnized
by a consular official is valid, provided that such marriage is celebrated in accordance with the
laws of such consular official. What is the status of the marriage of Glenda and John Reil?

a. Void, because the consular official has no authority to solemnize the marriage.
b. Valid, because according to the laws of Australia, such consular official has
authority to celebrate the marriage
c. Voidable, because such there is an irregularity in the authority of the consular official
to solemnize marriages. Consular marriages are limited to Philippine citizens.
d. Valid, because such marriage is recognized as valid in the place where it was
celebrated.
--- NOTHING FOLLOWS---