Ma'am's Lecture:
GR: laws have effect only in their territories
e.g. PFR: laws applicable only in the Philippines
Basis: every nation is sovereign and independent; another state cannot force our courts to apply their laws

Exception: when the law applies expressly in other states
e.g. Article 15

But with the advance in the communications in transportations, conflict of laws cases are increasing

Hilton v. Guyot:
-why is it that despite sovereign states, we end up recognizing foreign judgments
H: PRIL adopted in municipal laws through comity
-in short, Hilton and Libbey were saying, "ang daya!"
-definition of comity:
Not absolute obligation: or else, the court would be compelled to apply the law of another nation; sovereignty would just go out the window
AND TO THE RIGHTS OF ITS OWN CITIZENS OR OF OTHER PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF ITS LAWS
-rights of own citizens are assured to be protected first! (reciprocity) - the laws are meant to benefit us
Not mere courtesy or good will or convenience: or else,
…if mere courtesy: random, unsystematic - courtesy cannot be claimed, not a right…so may be given through discretion of the court
-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
…mere recognition: it's part of international duty? How?
e.g. if already acquired favorable judgment abroad, it would result in injustice if the successful litigant would be compelled to litigate again since he would entail more expenses??? Plus in a way, you're not respecting the competence of those courts to render judgment???
SABI NI MA'AM: if same law, spend money…waste his time…to go through the whole procedure knowing that the result would be the same anyway
If different law: you entered a contract, knowing what law is applicable so by applying a different law, unfair
+ end of litigation
Loses element of surprise: alam mo na ung sasabihin ng kalaban so unfair na…dapat i-res judicata na!
Help in relations of states: don't waste time and energy of the courts in each states
DISSENT: res judicata and public policy of end of litigation
-encourage states to recognize each other's laws: comity should prove to be beneficial to states
Lowers standard of comity: principle of retortion is a task for the legislature to do, not for the courts; the court in applying comity was doing legislative act. Plus injustice is that private individuals cannot change laws so why make them suffer for the difference in laws in different states?

PRIL and PIL: see table in notes; this section would only contain the comments of ma'am beth during the lecture
Example of PRIL found in Municipal law: Artilce 15, 16, 17 NCC + other provisions of wills

Why PRIL in Civil Law Bar subject: many of conflict of laws rules are in Civil law…. But abroad, PIL and PRIL are at par, both part of international law…

CHAPTER II: HISTORY
Roman Law origin
-applied ius gentium vs. ius civile (as developed by the Praetor pregrinus)
-developed by Roman Law and Italian City-states

Theory of Statutes - by Bartolus
1. Real Statutes: immovable property
2. Personal Statutes: movable property, persons capacity, personal status
3. Mixed Statutes: contracts

French : universal succession
HUBER: territorial principle
…basta one principle at the start: territorial principle or principle of comitas gentium

Story: territorial theory, comity
Beale: Theory of vested rights
E.g. Torts
1. Act or omission done
2. Injury occurs
-but both components may have been done in different states!
e.g. product liability case: may be manufactured in another state, then the injury happened in another state
-nationality of the person is not relevant...
Question of vested rights enter:
State A: considers the conduct a tortuous conduct
State B: does not consider it so, but injury happens here
Vested right applies: right under State A has already been vested in the victim so anywhere he goes, the vested right apply
X: if the law where the action is filed says that the law where the injury happened governs,
Savigny: situs
Manicini: nationality theory

IN RP:
…
Sources of PRIL
Comments of ma'am on treaties: before, more of PIL
-now, there are treaties which provides PRIL rules

Judicial decisions: bulk of conflict law


Jurisdiction

GEMPERLE V. SCHENKER
Ma'am:
GR: service of summons on wife is not service of summons on the defendant husband
X: in this case, the wife is the attorney in fact of her husband

PENNOYER V. NEFF
IN PERSONAM: dapat personal service
By attaching property, you're not converting the action to an action in rem
COA in first case: in personam!


INTERNATIONAL SHOE CASE V. WASHINGTON
Presence: why considered
Here: presence through continuous and systematic operations
-here, considered presence because this involves a corporation. The state acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by its presence in the territory of the forum . But here, since it involves a company, its presence in the territory of the forum might be determined from the activities in the state
-minimum contacts + fundamental fairness
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
e.g. if a person sells only 2 pairs of shoes in a state, would he be sufficiently appraised of any suit against him in that state? No. so no expectation that he be hailed in court
+ if mejo marami ang kita, may expectation dapat na you may be sued in that state

-did not look into what kind of suit was filed: even if in personam or in rem or even quasi in rem, not strict what kind of service was used as long as notions of fair play was observed

MULLANE V. CENTRAL HANOVER
Even if this is a proceeding in rem, use the most reasonable means to ensure that the defendants be notified of the proceedigns against them (so since you know the addresses of the defendants)

SHAFFER v. HEITNER
-the freeze order was imposed but the certificates of stocks were not in Delaware

Difference from Pennoyer case: minimum contacts should be among, defendant, forum and COA

*most corporation in US is incorporated in Delaware because they have the most corporation-friendly laws; after incorporation umaalis sila…


Assignment next week: until proof of foreign law (before part three) -November 26?