Chapter I and II (and a bit of III): PRIL notes for November 12

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: SCOPE OF CONFLICT OF LAWS: ITS NATURE, DEFINITION AND IMPORTANCE
1. DIVERSITY OF LAWS AND CUSTOMS
-190 independent and sovereign states, and still growing
-each state have different legal system (own laws, own jurisprudence) influenced by
*religion
*customs
*culture
-with development in transportation and communication, interaction between nationals of states are increasing
-division of world into many independent states with own laws + occurrence of events that contains elements significant to more than 1 legal system = conflict of laws
-there were attempts to have a uniform law (by ASEAN) but because of principles of SOVEREIGNTY and INDEPENDENCE, this may not be achieved
-attempts to have uniform law:
*1928 Sixth International Conference of American States in Havana: on PRIL
*Bustamante Code: uniform provisions on civil law, commercial law, penal law and law on procedure  (wehe so walang political law and ethics)
*creation of the Inter-American Council of Jurists by OAS in 1948 - but has not achieved anything concrete
*1951 Hague Convention on PRIL: on family law, succession and products liability (3 lang to ah)
-PRIL confronts not only judges but also administrative agencies
-adoption/incorporation of principles of PRIL in municipal law is based on COMITY
HILTON V. GUYOT
f: 2 cases
CASE 1: Gustave Guyot (liquidator for French firm CHARLES FORTRICH & CO.) sued co-partners of A.T. STEWART & CO. Henry Hilton and William Libbey (residents of NY) in FRENCH COURT for amount due to the French firm
Summary
Plaintiff: french
Defendant: american
Forum 1: France
Case2:  Guyot sued Hilton and Libbey in US Circuit Court for the amount due based on the FRENCH JUDGMENT. US CC held judgment conclusive, entered decree in favor of Guyot W/O EXAMINING ANEW MERITS OF THE CASE
-Hilton and Libbey now appeals: French courts gives no force and effect to the duly rendered judgments in US Courts against French citizens SO US courts should also not give force and effect to French judgments against US citizens
H: for Hilton and Libbey
GR: Law has only effect within territory of state
"No law has any effect, of its own force, beyond the limits of the sovereignty from which its authority is derived. "
X: if there's comity of nations
"The extent to which the law of one nation, as put in force within its territory, whether by executive order, by legislative act, or by judicial decree, shall be allowed to operate within the dominion of another nation,  DEPENDS UPON what our greatest jurists have been content to call THE COMITY OF NATIONS"
COMITY
-neither a matter of absolute obligation nor mere courtesy and good will
-RECOGNITION WHICH ONE NATION ALLOWS WITHIN ITS TERRITORY
…OF THE LEGISLATIVE
…EXECUTIVE
…OR JUDICIAL ACTS
OF ANOTHER NATION,
HAVING DUE REGARD BOTH TO
...INTERNATIONAL DUTY
…AND CONVENIENCE
AND TO THE RIGHTS OF ITS OWN CITIZENS OR OF OTHER PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF ITS LAWS
-application to the case: French only gives prima facie effect (not conclusive) on the judgment of foreign courts unless that state has treaty with France
-France tries the case anew
-Prima facie evidence yung judgment iff:
*rendered by competent court having jurisdiction over COA and Parties
*upon due allegations and proofs
*opportunity to defend against them
*proceedings are according to course of civilized jurisprudence
*judgment stated in clear and formal record
-judgment may be IMPEACHED if:
*fraud or prejudice
*principles of IL  and COMITY, it should not be given full credit
*it is usual that countries not give conclusive effect on foreign judgments, mere prima facie effect
DISSENTING: J HARLAN, BREWER AND JACKSON:
-apply res judicata and public policy that there should be end to litigation
2. DEFINITION
3. Part of municipal law which governs cases involving a foreign element
4. MINOR: those universal principles of right and justice which govern the courts of one state
having before them cases involving
...the operation
...and effect f laws of another state or country
5. CHESIRE: part of law which comes into play
when the issue before the court
AFFECTS SOME FACT OR EVENT OR TRANSACTION
that is SO CLOSELY CONNECTED W/ FOREIGN SYSTEM OF LAW
as to necessitate recourse to that system
6. 2nd ed, American Jurisprudence: part of the law of each state or nation
which determines whether, in dealing w/ a legal situation,
the law of some other state or nation will be
...recognized,
...given effect
...or applied
7. HILTON v. GUYOT: law concerning the rights of persons within the territory and dominion of one nation, by reason of acts, private or public, done within the dominion of another nation
PIL vs. PRIL

Category	PUBLIC IL	PRIVATE il
Applicability of ratione personae and ratione materiae	Relationships of states among themselves	Relationship of individuals in their private transactions which involve a foreign element
Sources of law	A38, ICJ Statute: *custom *treaties *GPIL *juridical decisions *teachings of most highly qualified publicists	GR: from internal law of each state, NOT from any international law extraneous to municipal law NATIONAL CONFLICT RULES: Internal law of each country X: if conflict governed by treaty e.g. Hague Convention on the Conflict of Laws relating to the form of testamentary dispositions INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT RULES: *international conventions *foreign case law *commentaries interpreting these conventions
Persons involved	*States *Internationally Recognized organizations	*Individuals *Corporations
Transactions governed	State to state Government to government	Private transactions
Remedies	*Diplomatic protest *peaceful means of settlement of international disputes: >diplomatic negotiations >arbitration >conciliation *adjudication by filing case before int'l tribunals *war	*courts *admin tribunals

Municipal law vs. Conflict of Law rules in Municipal law

Municipal law	Conflict of Law in ML
No foreign element present	Involves foreign element

3. OBJECT, FUNCTION AND SCOPE
Object and Function
-provide rational and valid rules or guidelines in deciding cases where involved relates to more than one jurisdiction
-protection of rational expectations
-stability and uniformity of solutions
ArtII (2), 1987 CONSTI: Recognize generally accepted principle of IL,
Adhere to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations
SCOPE: almost all subjects
1. Jurisdiction of courts
2. Evidence of proof of foreign law
3. Personal law of individuals and juridical entities
4. Naturalization law
5. Laws on domicile and residence
6. Family relations
7. Contracts
8. Torts
9. Crimes
10. Corpo law
11. Property law
12. International air transport (Warsaw convention)
CHAPTER II: A BRIEF HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS
1. ROMAN LAW ORIGIN
Roman Empire
Ius gentium:
-law of nations in PIL
-governs relations of States
-body of rules developed by the PRAETOR PEREGRINUS to resolve disputes between
Foreigners
Foreigners and Roman Citizens
Ius Civile: applied only to Roman Citizens
Italy
-Italy was divided into many city-states, each have own law - so they have conflicts of law problems
BARTOLUS (father of conflict of laws): formulated the THEORY OF STATUTES
-the theory of statutes was used by the Italian city-states to resolve conflict of law issues
STATUTES classification
1. REAL STATUTES (STATUTA REALIA): applied to immovable property w/n the state
2. PERSONAL STATUTES (STATUTA PERSONALIA): followed persons even outside his domicile, governed all questions concerning
…personal status
…capacity
…movables
3. MIXED STATUTES (STATUTA MIXTA): on contracts - depend on where entered
16th century France
CHARLES DUMOULIN: method to determine what law would govern CONTRACTS BETWEEN DIFFERENT NATIONALS
BERTRAND D'ARGENTE: PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL SUCCESSION
Netherlands
BURGUDNOU, RODENBERG, ULRICH HUBER (first used CONFLICT OF LAWS): State was under no obligation to apply foreign law UNLESS imposed by
…treaty
…COMITAS GENTIUM (Comity of Nations?)
…on consideration of courtesy and expediency
JOHN VOET: no statue, real, personal or mixed, can act by itself beyond the territory of the legislator nor can it have any effect elsewhere against the will of the legislator of another state
-Territorial Principle:
GR: laws of every state may operate ONLY WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMIT OF SUCH STATE
X: may recognize laws of another country PROVIDED that it will not prejudice the subjects of the sovereign whose recognition is sought
*Comitas Gentium (Comity of Nations) approach readily accepted
-most trans-jurisdictional disputes to be resolved by the application of IUS GENTIUM or IUS COMMUNE
Ius Commne: supranational law based on Roman Law, became continental European Common Law
-nations began codifying their national laws to include conflict of laws provisions:
*Bavarian Code: theory of statutes
*Prussian Code: theory of efficacy of contracts
*French Civil Code: pattern for Civil Codes of Spain, Belgium, and Romania: nationality principle
-adopted by RP: ART15, NCC
J. JOSEPTH STORY: Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws - territorial theory/comitas gentium approach
-territorial sovereignty, founded conflict of laws on the principle of comity of nations
-adopted by JOSEPH BEALE, American Restatement of Conflict of Laws, developed territorial "VESTED RIGHTS" school of thought
FREDERICH CARL VON SAVIGNY: System of Modern Law - Situs theory
-advocated historical school of jurisprudence
-applicationof foreign law was not due to comity BUT the resultant benefits for everyone concerned
-founder of MODERN PRIL
-theory of situs/seat of legal relationship: every element of a transaction be governed by the law of the place with which said element has the most substantive connection
PASCUALE MANICINI: Nationality as the Basis of Law of Nations- nationality theory(sortof Mixed statute)
-nationality theory on
Status
Capacity
Private interests of the individual
-NEW THEORY OF PRIL
1. MODRN DEVELOPMENTS
*Neostatutists: when two or more independent laws are applicable to a conflict of laws problem, the method so devised determines what law shall prevail
*Internationalists: there should be a single body of rules that can solve problems involving foreign element
*Territorialists: law of the State applied to persons and things within the State, no foreign law should be applied
-branch: only rights vested or acquired under a foreign law are recognized but not the foreign law itself
*2nd Restatement, William Reese: the law to be applied in a conflict of laws case is the law of the most significant relationship
*CAVERS, CURRIE AND EHRENZWEIG: policy-centered approaches
Conflict of Laws in RP
-only when RP became sovereign state
In NCC
Art15: nationality principle
Art. 15.  Laws 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. (9a)
Art16(1): lex situs rule - from Art10 of Spanish CC
Art. 16.  Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated.
Art 16(2): universal successsion -from Art11 of Spanish Civil Code
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. (10a)
Art17(1): lex loci contractus -from Art11 of Spanish Civil Code
*no significant jurisprudence on PRIL in RP
Art. 17.  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.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have, for their object, public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. (11a)
Art. 18.  In matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, their deficiency shall be supplied by the provisions of this Code. (16a)
-in Law School:
*PRIL included in Curriculum at start of Law school (1911)
*PRIL included under Civil Law in Bar exams
*more transactions involving Filipinos abroad, increasing application of PRIL in the Philippines
CHAPTER III: SOURCES OF CONFLICTS OF LAWS
1. CODES AND STATUTES
-Conflict of Laws from Continental Europe - codified - so Civil Codes are primary sources of Conflict of Laws rules
-principle of ius gentium: codified in Roman Codes
-rule on Personal law: Code of Napoleon, followed by
*Codes of Netherlands
*Romania
*Italy
*Portugal
*Spain
…
In RP
Spanish Civil Code of 1888: enforced in RP Dec7, 1889 until August 30, 1950
-Conflict of laws provisions adopted by RP NCC
Code of Commerce of Spain: foreign transactions provisions - also enforced in Dec1, 1888
New:
1987 Consti: Nationality, Comity
Special Statutes:
1. Corporation Code
2. General Banking Act
3. Act Instituting Foreign Currency System in the Philippines
4. Philippine Foreign Law Guarantee Corporation
5. Act Regulating Retail Business
6. Anti-Dummy Law
7. Nationalization of the Rice and Corn Industry
8. Insurance Code
9. Protection of Intellectual Property
10. Patent Law
11. Tradesmark Law
12. COGSA
13. Salvage Law
14. Public Service Act
15. Civil Aeronautics Act
16. Philippine Overseas Shipping Act
17. Investment Incentives Act
18. Export Incentives Act
19. RA 7722 liberalizing entry of foreign banks in the Philippines
2. TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
1.  Convention on International Civil Aviation
2. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to international Carriage by Air - Warsaw Convention
3. Convention on Offenses Committed on Board Aircraft
4. Convention for Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation
5. UN COGSA
6. Convention on the Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages
7. Convention on Traffic of Person
8. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
9. Convention on Political Rights of Women
10. International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children
11. Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others
12. Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization
13. Berne Conventions for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
14. Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
15. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
16. Hague Conventions on PRIL:
…personal status
…patrimonial family status
…patrimonial status such as agency and trusts
17. Convention on Recognition of Foreign Judgment on Civil and Commercial matters
18. Convention in Respect of Inter Country Adoption
3. TREATIESES, COMMENTARES AND STUDIES OF LEARNED SOCIETIES
European
Ulrich Huber, De Conflicto Legum Diversarum in Diversia Impecis
Mareas (di ba Manresa?), Comentarios al Codigo Civil Espanol
FK von Savigny, System des Beutigen Romishcen Rights, english translation by Guthrie
Andrei Weiss, Traite Theorique et Pratique de Droit International Prive
American and English
JH Beale, Conflict of Laws
DF Cavers, The Choice of Law Process
E. Cheatham, Cases and Materials on Conflict of Laws
B. Currie, Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws
A. Ehrenzweig, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws
HF Goodrich, Conflict of Laws
AK Kuhn, Commentarieson PRIL
A Gussbaum, Principles of PRIL
E Rabel, The Conflict of Laws
J Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws
F Wharton, Treatiese on the Conflict of Laws
GC Chesire, Private International Law
RH Graveson, Conflict of laws
American Institute
Restatement of the Conflicts of Laws
Second Restatement
2. JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Graveson: this branch of law is more completely judge-made than almost any other
PART TWO: JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF LAW
CHAPTER IV: JURISDICTION
Judicial Jurisdiction: power or authority of a court to
...try a case
…render judgment
…and execute it in accordance with law
Legislative jurisdiction: ability of the state to
…promulgate laws
…enforce them
On all persons and property within its territory
Four major questions:
1. Has the court JURISDICTION OVER PERSON OF DEFENDANT OR HIS PROPERTY
2. Has the court JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER/competency
3. Has the suit been brought in the PROPER VENUE in cases where a foreign element is involved
4. Is there a STATUTE OR DOCTRINE under which a court otherwise qualified to try the case may or may not refuse to entertain it (FORUM NON CONVENIENS)
1. BASIS OF EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL JURISDICTION
1. Jurisdiciton over the person (FORUM-DEFENDANT CONTACTS)
2. Jurisdiction over the res (FORUM-PROPERTY CONTACTS)
3. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter
NOTE: Forum = place where the judicial jurisdiction is sought to be exercised
Notes from CIVPRO LEONEN

Venue (R4)	Summons (R14)
Real Actions: action affecting title to or possession of real property or any interest therein	Action in Rem: Actions, the judgment of which affects the whole world.
Personal Actions: all other actions	Action in Personam: Actions, the judgment of which affects only the parties to the action

HOW SERVED

	Action in personam	Action in rem
Natural persons -defendant who may be: 1. defendant 2. prisoner 3. entity w/o juridical personality 4. minors and incompetents 5. resident temporarily out of RP 6. defendant cannot be found + does not reside in RP 7. defendant unknown	1. personal service -deliver summons + copy of complaint to defendant -tender summons + copy of complaint 2. substituted service -only resorted to when: a. justifiable causes b. cannot serve defendant w/n reasonable time c. all reasonable diligent efforts have been exerted -HOW: leave copies at *defendant’s residence: person then residing therein w/sufficient age and discretion *OR office/regular place of business: person in charge thereof FOR 7 (unknown defendant) -w/leave of court, service by publication in a newspaper of general circulation FOR 5 and 6 – extraterritorial service -w/leave of court 1. personal service outside RP 2. by publication + send through registered mail to the last known address the copy of the summons 3. any manner the court deems sufficient	1. personal service (see left) 2. substituted service 3. extraterritorial service -only for the following situations: actions involve a. personal status of plaintiff b. relates to, or the subject of w/c, is property w/n RP in w/c defendant has claim or lien, actual or contingent c. relief demanded consists of excluding the defendant from any interest in the property in RP d. property of defendant in RP attached w/n RP

Juridical persons
1. DOMESTIC CORP (corporations, partnership, association organized under RP Laws)	1. personal service on (6 persons only – list exclusive): a. President b. GM c. Managing Partner d. Corporate Secretary e. Corporate Treasurer f. In house counsel - no substituted service!	Service by publication? Extraterritorial? But domestic nga eh so din a sha nonresident+not found in RP
2. FPJE	Personal service ON (successive) resident agent designated in accordance w/law government official designated by law any of the officers or agents w/n RP	Extraterritorial service
3. Public Corp	RP: Solgen LGU: executive head, other officer/s as law or court may direct	Hmmm…

Notes from CIVPRO AVENA
Nature of Actions
1. As to SUBJECT MATTER

Real Action	Action brought for the protection of real rights, land, tenements or hereditaments or one founded on privity of estate only (accion reivindicatoria)
Personal Action	Action which is not founded upon privity of real rights or real property (action for a sum of money)
Mixed Action	Actions brought for protection or recovery of real property and also for award for damages sustained.

Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena
Personal Action – action against personal property
Real Action – action on real property
Action in Personam – action against a person
Action in Rem – action against a thing.   
2. As to their BINDING EFFECT

Action in Rem	One which is not directed only against a particular persons but against the thing itself and the object of which is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection against the right sought to be enforced (judgment which is binding to the whole world)
Action in Personam	One which is directed against particular persons on the basis of their personal liability to establish a claim against them and the judgment wherein is binding only upon the parties impleaded or their successors in interest
Action Quasi in Rem	One directed against particular persons but the purpose of which is to bar and bind not only said persons but any other person who claims any interest in the property or right subject of the suit.

De Midgely v. Ferandos
A quasi in rem action is an action between parties where the direct object is to reach and dispose of property owned by them or some interest therein. Jurisdiction was acquired because it was a quasi in rem action, where jurisdiction over the person is not required and where the service of summons is required only for the purpose of complying with the requirement of due process.
1. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON (in personam Jurisdiction)
Generally
1. Voluntary appearance
2. Submission to authority
OVER THE PERSON OF THE PLAINTIFF
-when plaintiff invokes the aid of the court by filling a suit
OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT
1. Enters appearance
GR: appearance of defendant or lawyer - gives consent for the forum's exercise of jurisdiction over him
X: Special appearance for the purpose of protesting the jurisdiction of the court
2. If non-resident who is initially the plaintiff: if counterclaim filed against him, he is already deemed to be under the court's exercise of jurisdiction
3. Served with the legal process within the state: SERVICE OF SUMMONS (RULE 14, ROC)
Section 6: PERSONAL SERVICE
-handing him a copy
-tendering him a copy if he refuses
Section 7: Substituted Service
-for justifiable causes, defendant cannot be served w/n reasonable time personally
a. Residence: with some person of SUITABLE AGE and DISCRETION THEN RESIDING THEREIN b. OFFICE/ REGULAR PLACE OF BUSINESS: competent person in charge thereof
Section 12: Service upon Foreign Private Juridical Entity (FPJE)
Defendant: foreign Private Juridical Entity
-transacted business in RP
How Service made:
a. on RESIDENT AGENT designated in accordance with law for that purpose
b. if NO AGENT:
i. on government official designated by law to that effect
Ii. On any of its officers or agents within the Philippines
Section 15. Extraterritorial Service
Defendant:
1. Does not reside + not found in RP
2. Action affects the personal status of plaintiff 
3. Relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent
4. Or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein
5. Or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines
How service:
-with leave of court
1. Personal service
2. By publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order + copy of summons and order sent thru registered mail to last known address
3. In any other manner the court may deem sufficient
…
WILLIAM GEMPERLE V. HELEN SCHENKER
F:
Case 1: Helen Schenker, representing her husband Paul Schenker, filed with CFI of Rizal a complaint vs. William Gemperle
COA: enforcement of Schenker's initial subscription to shares of stock in Philippine-Swiss Trading Co, Inc.
-allegations published
Case2: William Gemperle vs. Paul Schenker
COA: damages? For publishing allegations which were irrelevant and immaterial to Case 1, with the only purpose of attacking his honesty, integrity, and reputation and of bringing him into public hatred, discredit…as a business man
SERVICE OF SUMMONS: Done through wife of Paul, HELEN SCHENKER
I: WON the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant Paul Schenker, through the service of summons to HELEN SCHENKER
Gemperle's arguments: Voluntary appearance on part of Schenker
- not special appearance, already filed answer without contesting court's jurisdiction
-Schenker even filed counterclaim 
H:
ON Alleged voluntary appearance: none
1. The Answer contained affirmative defenses, including lack of jurisdiction over the person of Paul Schenker
2. Counterclaim was filed by HELEN SCHENKER ONLY, not by PAUL SCHENKER
BUT COURT COULD STILL EXERCISE JURISDICTION over Paul Schenker BECAUSE OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO MRS. HELEN SCHENKER
-Helen Schenker (as derived from the answer) was the REPRESENTATIVE AND ATTY IN FACT OF PAUL SCHENKER
-had authority to sue, and be sued
2. JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPERTY (in rem jurisdiction)
1. Seizure of property under a legal process
2. Institution of legal proceedings wherein the court's power over the property is recognized and made effective
-situs could bind the world, not just the interest of specific persons
-basis of exercise of jurisdiction: presence of the property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum
e.g. forfeiture of tangible property, registration of land title
Quasi In rem:
-based on state's physical power over the property found within its territory BUT affects only interests of particular persons in that thing
e.g. action to quiet title to property: the claimant's title to the property in question is superior to others
In Proceedings IN REM and QUASI IN REM: as long as there is adequate notice + opportunity to be heard, okay na! this can be done through publication
PENNOYER V. NEFF
F:
Case 1:
Plaintiff: Mitchell Pennoyer? (from Oregon)
Forum: Oregon
Defendant: Neff, from California
Service of Summons: by PUBLICATION in an OREGON Newspaper
COA: for payment of $300 attorney's fees
-for execution of judgment, Pennoyer was awarded in public sale the land of Neff located in Oregon
Case 2: Neff vs. Pennoyer
COA: for recovery of Neff's land from Pennoyer, illegality of public sale: no jurisdiction over defendant so void judgment in Case 1
HELD: For Neff - case 1 judgment VOID because no jurisdiction over him
*Judgments in Personam - dapat personal service or substituted service (in RP ROC)
-if service by publication + defendant non resident + publication in place where nonresident could not see the publication = fraud and oppression
Actions in Personam: object of the action is to determine the personal rights and obligations of the defendants
-if non resident: process from the tribunals of one state CANNOT run into another state, and summon parties there domiciled to leave its territory and respond to proceedings against them. Nor can Publication.
*pede Substituted service by publication IFF (proceedings in rem)
1. Property is once brought under the control of the court by seizure or some equivalent act to any proceedings authorized by law upon such seizure for its condemnation and sale
2. Object of the action is to reach and dispose of the property in the State or of some interest therein, by enforcing a contract or a lien respecting the same
3. Or to partition the property in the state among different owners
4. When the public is a party, to condemn and appropriate it for a public purpose
*no jurisdiction over non-resident defendants when these non-resident defendants have no property within the territory of the forum
*jurisdiction of the court to inquire into and determine the obligations of the non-resident is only incidental to its jurisdiction over the property and its jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon facts to be ascertained after it has tried the cause and rendered the judgment.
***if the judgment is previously void (no jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant), it will not become valid by the subsequent discovery of the property of the nonresident defendant or by his subsequent acquisition of it - or else, judgment would occupy a doubtful position of being void or valid depending on the presence of property of the nonresident defendant in the forum's territory
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. VS. WASHINGTON
Facts:
COA: International Shoe Company being assessed taxes by Washington State for employing salesmen in Washington
Parties: International shoe Company is
-principal place of business: Missouri
-maintains places of business in other states aside from Washington
-no office in Washington, but they hired 11-13 salesmen under direct supervision and control of sales managers based in Missouri
-these salesmen were not authorized to contract in Washington: they can only exhibit their samples and solicit orders; approval of the transaction, shipping of transaction, invoice of shipment were all made outside Washington
SERVICE: gave summons to agents + mailed it through registered mail at home office in Missouri
Washington SC:
the regular and systematic solicitation of orders in the state by International shoe's Salesmen
+ additional activities of its agents:
…display of samples sometimes in permanent display rooms
...salesmen's residence in Washington
= resulted in the CONTITUOUS FLOW OF ITS PRODUCTS INTO WASHINGTON, SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE so as to make International Shoe amenable to suits before Washington Courts
HELD: Washington can impose taxes on International Shoe
-Before; Judgment in personam: grounded on de facto power over defendant's person - presence within territorial jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally binding him [Pennoyer vs. Neff]
-now: capias ad respondendum gave way to personal service of summons or other form of notice, OKAY NA IF DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE CERTAIN MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH THE FORUM SUCH THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT DOES NOT OFFEND "TRADITIONAL NOTIONSO F FAIR PALY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE [Milliken v. Meyer]
-PRESENCE OF A CORPORATION (CORPORATE PERSONALITY IS A FICTION): its presence without, as well as within a state of its origin can be manifested ONLY BY ACTIVITIES carried on in its behalf by those who are authorized to act for it
-present/presence symbolize those activities of the corporation's agents within the state which courts will deem to be sufficient to satisfy the demands of due process
-if ACTIVITIES
...continuous
…systematic
…also gives rise to the liabilities sued
EVEN if NO CONSENT TO BE SUED or NO AUTHORIZATION to an agent to accept service of process…
casual presence of the corporate agent or even his conduct of single or isolated items of activities NOT ENOUGH TO SUBJECT THE NON-RESIDENT CORPORATION TO SUIT ON CAUSES OF ACTION NOT CONNECTED WITH ITS ACTIVITIES
Vs.
If Continuous corporate operations - even if COA entirely distinct from activities, pede
It is enough that  appellant (non-resident corporation - FPJE) has established such contacts with the state that the particular form of substituted service adopted there gives reasonable assurance that the notice will be actual.
Ma'am: this approach of minimum contacts and fundamental fairness demands that there be forum-transaction contacts that will make it fundamentally fair to require the defendant to defend a suit in the forum regardless of his nonresident status
MULLANE V. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK AND TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, ET.AL
FACTS:
Defendant: Central Hanover Bank
-a trust company IN NY
-had exclusive control and management of trust funds established y it under NY Banking Law
Plaintiffs: some are nonresidents of NY
COA: for judicial settlement of assets - binding on everyone
SERVICE: publication in NY, pursuant to law (even if the bank had the addresses of the beneficiaries in its books!)
Forum: NY
ISSUE: WON the judgment in NY court binds non-residents who are beneficiaries of the common fund maintained by Central Hanover Bank which it wanted to settle
HELD: NY Banking Law violates DUE PROCESS so VOID - NY Judgment not binding
STANDARD FOR ADEQUATE NOTICE:  the means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it. The reasonableness and constitutional validity of any chosen method may be defended on the ground that it is in itself reasonably certain to inform those affected
Here: Bank had names, addresses of the beneficiaries of its trusts so Notice by Publication is not enough: Where the names and post office addresses of those affected by a proceeding are at hand, the reasons disappear for resort to means less likely than the mails to apprise them of its pendency
MA'AM: ADEQUATE NOTICE STANDARD
SHAFFER V. HEITNER
Plaintiff: Heitner (non resident of Delaware)
Defendants: Officers of Greyhound and Greyhound (Greyhound incorporated in Delaware BUT the officers are nonresidents of Delaware)
COA: violation of the officers of duties, resulting to criminal and civil antitrust liabilities
RELIEF: motion for an order of sequestration of shares of Greyhound stocks belonging to the officers (none of the certificates of stocks were in Delaware)
Forum: Delaware (because it was Greyhound's state of incorporation)
SERVICE: Certified mail to last known address + publication in newspaper
Delaware for Heitner so Officers appealed
ISSUE: WON there was sufficient contacts of the Officers of the Greyhound in Delaware to justify the exercise of Delaware Courts of jurisdiction over person of defendant officers
HELD: NO. Being mere officers is not sufficient minimum contact
*Officer's holdings in Greyhound do not provide contacts with Delaware sufficient to support the jurisdiction of Delaware Courts because property is NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION (not action in rem)
-Heitner used International Shoe vs. Washington to say that the officers should be liable for their minimum contacts in Delaware + Delaware Corporation Law
COURT: Delaware law bases jurisdiction not on the officers status as corporate fiduciaries, BUT ON THE PRESENCE of their PROPERTY in the state (here, none). The law does not concern sequestration. And sequestration relevant only if the nonresident defendants have property in Delaware.
*there is no necessary relationship between holding a position as a corporate fiduciary and owning stock or other interests in the corporation.
*the Officers-appellants, who are not required to acquire interest in Greyhound in order to hold their positions, did not by acquiring those interests, surrender their rights to be brought to judgment only in states with which they had "Minimum Contacts:
MA'AM:  US SC defined the outer reaches of permissible exercise of judicial jurisdiction when it held that MINIMUM CONTACTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS TEST SHOLD BE SATISFIED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE IN REM, QUASI IN REM OR IN PERSONAM.  Note that Shaffer demands that minimum contacts exist among the forum, defendant AND THE COA. In INTERNATIONAL SHOE, all that was required was minimum contact between defendant and forum.
Long arm statutes
-specify the kind of contacts upon which jurisdiction will be asserted by a sate
e.g.     Commission of tortuous acts w/n the state
Celebration of a contract there
Presence of property owned by defendant
*if these or other minimum contacts exists, the court can exercise jurisdiction because it has a justified interest in providing the plaintiff with a forum, no fundamental unfairness results
-if long-arm statute broad, as long as it doesn't conflict with Consti, courts now have discretion to define on a case-to-case basis
3. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER (competence)
-conferred by law or consti
-based on the nature of the controversy
-it is necessary that said power to try be properly invoked…by filing a petition
-cannot be conferred by consent of parties: decision is void if court exceeds its jurisdiction and power in rendering it
IDONAH PERKINS V. ROXAS
FACTS:
CFI case:
Original Action: Eugene Perkins vs. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (BCMC) for recovery of dividends payable to him, which was withheld by company
BCMC (answer?): they withheld the payment because of adverse claims by Idonah Perkins (yes, his wife) and George Engelhard.
Amended Complaint: impleaded Idonah and George (both nonresidents)
Service: summons by publication
Idonah's ANSWER w/ cross complaint: NY judgment adjudged her the sole owner of said shares claimed by Eugene
-alleged that NY Judgment is res judicata on all questions constituting the subject matter of the case
ISSUE: WON CFI had jurisdiction over the subject matter of case
HELD: YES. CFI had jurisdiction to determine if NY Judgment is indeed res judicata
JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER:
the nature of the cause of action
and of the relief sought,
conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court,
and is to be sought for in
general nature of its powers,
or in authority specially conferred
Here:
Eugene's prayes is for
1. BCMC to recognize him as the owner of the shares of stocks
2. That Idonah and George be declared to have no claim on the stocks
3. That Eugene be awarded costs of sutit
>>>Eugene's action is for ADJUDICATION OF TITLE TO CERTAIN SHARES OF STOCKS OF BCMC AND THE GRANTING OF AFFIRMATIVE RELIEFS = w/n CFI's jurisdiction
Idonah's prayer:
For recogition of NY judgment + issue execution = also w/n CFI's jurisdiction
On fear of Idonah that NY judgment be annuled…
COURT: it is a question that goes to the merits of the controversy and relates to the rights of the parties as between each other, and NOT TO THE JURISDICTION OR POWER OF THE COURT
*TEST OF JURISDICTION: WON the tribunal has the power to enter upon the inquiry, NOT Whether its conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong
2. WAYS OF DEALING WITH CONFLICTS PROBLEM
1. DISMISS CASE
Doctrine of Forum non conveniens
-courts may decline to try the case on the ground that the controversy may be more suitably tried elsewhere
-literal  interpretation: forum is inconvenient
*Usual grounds when this was used by the court:
1. When plaintiff made the choice of the forum primarily to harass defendant by inflicting upon him unnecessary expense and hardship in pursuing the remedy
2. Where  non-resident plaintiff chose the forum because he felt that the jury verdicts were larger than in other for a
3. When such was
4. ASSUME JURISDICTION