PRIL: Chapter VII. Problem with Renvoi (summary notes)

1. DEFINITION OF RENVOI
Renvoi
-procedure whereby a jural matter presented is referred by the conflict of laws rules of the forum to a foreign state, the conflict of law rules of which, in turn, refers the matter to the law of the forum or a third state
-2 types:
2. REMISSION: reference back to the law of the forum
3. TRANSMISSION: reference to a 3rd state
-When usually employed:
*where domiciliary and nationality laws are applied to the same individual in issues involving
>succession
>domestic relations
>real properties
2. VARIOUS WAYS OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM OF RENVOI (GRISWOLD)
1. REJECT RENVOI: FORUM COURT REFER TO THE "INTERNAL LAW" (law that would be applied to a domestic case that has no conflict-of-laws complications) OF ANOTHER STATE
(forum: conflicts of law refer to foreign forum's INTERNAL LAW - so it would itself resolve the conflict, just apply substantial internal law of the other country without referring the case to another forum)
2. ACCEPT RENVOI: FORUM COURT REFER TO THE "WHOLE LAW" OF ANOTHER STATE (includes choice-of-law rules - di ba conflicts of law rules?)
(FORUM: refer to foreign forum's WHOLE LAW) > FOREIGN: WHOLE LAW would include INTERNAL LAW + CONFLICTS OF LAW> if Conflicts of Law rules of foreign forum refers case back or to another forum….)
AZNAR V. GARCIA
Facts:
-Decedent: Edward Christiansen
>Citizen of the US, State of California at the time of death
>BUT was living in the Philippines at the time of death (domicile)
>and his Properties are in the Philippines
-Will of decedent:
>P3,600 to Maria Helena Christiansen-Garcia (the acknowledged natural child of decedent)
>The rest of the estate to Maria Lucy Christiansen-Daney (daughter)
-testate proceedings in PHILIPPINES
>>>HELENA GARCIA opposed: Philippine Law should apply!

LAW OF CALIFORNIA	LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES
California Probate Code: testator may dispose of his property by will in the form and manner he desires (+ In re Kaufman) Art946, Civil Code of California: "If there is no law to the contrary, in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its owner, and is governed by the law of his domicile" (conflict of law rule for Californian citizens abroad)	Art16, NCC: National law of the person whose succession is in Question

TC: California law applies
MR/Appeal by Garcia: the conflicts of law rule of California reverts the issue back to the Philippines, thus, Philippine law should apply (thus she is entitled to her legitime)
HELD: Apply PHILIPPINE LAW
(flow of the ruling)
1. What does forum law provide? Article 16: "national law" of the person  whose succession is in question
2. What is the NATIONAL LAW of Edward Christiansen, who was a Californian citizen: in US, each state has its own private law so it can refer to no other than the private law of the State of California.
3. If it is Californian Law, what law would be applicable in the disposition of Personal property (if real property and Philippine law the place where the estate lies pede venue?)? 2 laws to be considered [see above]
"If the law on succession and the conflict of laws rules of California are to be enforced jointly, each in its own intended and appropriate sphere, the principle cited in In Re Kaufman should apply to citizens living in the State,  but Article 946 should apply to such of its citizens as are not domiciled in California but in other jurisdictions.
4. Since Edward Christiansen, though a Citizen of California, lives outside California, the court applied Article 946. But according to appellees, the said article provides that "if there is no law to the contrary in the place where property is situated…the aw of his domicile" applies means that if the properties are situated in the Philippines, and if there is a law in the Philippines which provides that law other than the decedent's domicile would apply, then the Californian law should be applicable. They argue that since Article 16 of the NCC makes the law of the nationality (not the law of the domicile) applicable, then the Californian law should be applied:
"the national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of laws in the Californian Civil Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the reference or return of the question to the law of the testator's domicile. The conflict of law rules in California, Article 946, Civil code, precisely refers back the case, when a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, the Philippines in the case at bar. The court of the domicile cannot and should not refer the case back to California; such action would leave the issue incapable of determination because the case will then be like a football, tossed back and forth between the two states, between the country of which the decedent was a citizen and the country of his domicile."
5. As Philippine INTERNAL law should apply, Natural Children legally acknowledged are forced heirs of the parents recognizing them, therefore, Helen should be entitled to her share in their father's estate.
**** Ma'am: by accepting the renvoi, and applying forum law (as the foreign forum referred the case back to the forum), the Court rendered justice to the natural child of the decedent by granting her her legitimes.
3rd. DESISTANCE/MUTUAL DISCLAIMER OF JURISDICTION. Forum court refers to foreign court's law. Foreign law does not have a conflict of law rule which apply to non-nationals so still apply forum law.
(same as accepting renvoi, but since foreign law not applicable when outside the foreign state, forum court desists in applying foreign law)
4th. FOREIGN COURT THEORY. Forum court would assume position of the foreign court, i.e. forum court would apply the law that the foreign court would apply if it had assumed jurisdiction.
Note: In all the explanation given in the book, it appears that in Renvoi, there is no actual transfer of the case to another court. The forum court still exercises jurisdiction over the dispute but just use renvoi to use other law or to desist from using foreign law.
DISADVANTAGE OF RENVOI: if both courts follow the same renvoi theory: no end to the case
Resembles…
…revolving doors
…a game of lawn tennis
...A logical cabinet of mirrors
…circulus inextricabilis
ANNESLEY , DAVIDSON V. ANNESLEY
-Testatrix:
*British subject
*lived in France
*have properties in France and Britain
*made a will in English form, executed in France, giving ultimate residue of her estate to her daughter absolutely
*also made a codicil in English form, executed it in France
*both Will and CODICIL contained provisions wherein testatrix emphasized her intent to remain a British subject and not to fix her domicile in France
…she died

British law	French Law
Testatrix is domiciled in France	Testatrix should first comply with formal steps to acquire French domicile
No law on how to dispose of estate	Testatrix could only dispose of 1/3 of property

-probate proceedings before English courts
WON the domicile of the Testatrix is England or France?
FRANCE.
1. English law provides 2 requirement to determine where domicile is:
1. Factum of residence (in France)
2. Animus Manendi [intent to stay there permanently?]
2. Testatrix complies with the 2 requirements and SO, in the English court (forum), she has her domicile in France (irrelevant if she failed to comply with French law in acquiring French domicile)
3. Since France is where she is domiciled, what French law should apply?
French municipal law: if not legally domiciled in France + not a French National: law of that person's nationality (so British law applies)
4. So what does the British law provide:  apply the law of the domicile (French Law)
5. So would French law accept it back? Yes, apply French Municipal law
HELD: According to French Law, French courts would apply French Municipal Law in administering the movable property of a deceased foreigner (who according to his own law is domiciled in France and whose property must, in accordance to French law, be applied in accordance with the law of the country in which he was domciled)…in short, apply FRENCH law then can only dispose of 1/3 of her estate by will!
3. USEFULNESS OF RENVOI
-avoid unjust results
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO V. DATER
-GEORGE Dater (and his wife, Nellie Dater) and JOHN Price (and his wife, CLARA Price) obtained a loan for $75k in CHICAGO
-the loan is secured by a property in CHICAGO owned by George and John Price.
-the checks for the loan were payable and was cashed in Chicago
-the debtor couples signed the trust mortgage and notes in Michigan (they were residents of Michigan), then delivered the documents back at Illinois, Chicago
-upon death of Mr. Price, Mrs. Clara Price became the actual and record owner of at least 1/2 of the mortgaged property.
-Loan was not paid. So property was sought to be foreclosed by University of Chicago? In Chicago…
-George Dater was held liable while Clara Price (the widow) was absolved, no COA
-UNIVERSITY of CHICAGO appeals
WON Mrs. Price has the capacity to enter into an obligation in the state of Michigan (so as to make her liable)?
NO.
-dispute does not involve construction/force/effect of instruments BUT OF MRS. PRICE'S CAPACITY.
-(not sure): apply law of the place of performance (here it's Michigan)

Michigan law	Illinois law
Mrs. Price has no personal liability on the note, recoverable from her separate estate	The case is governed by Michigan law…Burr Case

Burr v. Beckler: the wife, who was in Florida, executed a note and trust deed in Florida to her husband who was in Chicago. As the note was complete when delivered from Florida (thus, already completed in Florida), Florida law would apply, and since Florida law holds that she is not competent to enter into a contract, her note and trust deed were void.
-Burr case and this case:
*manual delivery complete: already signed when delivered to the mortgagee
*no engagement to make the loan prior to delivery (money cashed after execution of mortgage)
*no advance payment of money
HELD: MICHIGAN LAW applies. MRS. PRiCE NOT LIABLE. A married woman cannot bind her separate estate through personal engagement for the benefit of others.
***
University of Chicago v. Dater case is sound:
-Michigan protected Michigan wife; Illinois not interested in applying its law
-application of renvoi promoted uniformity of results inspite of discrepancies in the choice-of-law rules
OBJECTIONS TO RENVOI
1. CON: place the court in a perpetually enclosed circle from which it would never emerge and that it would never find a suitable body of substantive rules to apply to a particular case - only workable if 2 states does not have same renvoi theory and if only 1 rejects renvoi
PRO: Dean Griswold
>False premise: the "chain" would stop if remission is to the state's INTERNAL LAW ALONE
>Allowed for necessity and expediency
2. CON: Courts may be unnecessarily burdened w/ the task of identifying the choice-of-law rules of another state
PRO: forum court would not use renvoi if it cannot ascertain what the conflict-of-law rules of the foreign state in the first place…
INAPPLICABILITY OF RENVOI IN A FALSE CONFLICT
False conflict: where only 1 state is interested in applying its law, the other state has no issue in its law not being applied
-Renvoi was held inappropriate in Pfau v. Trent Aluminum Co.:
NJ and Connecticut have identical substantive laws, Iowa has no interest in ensuring that its law be applied -so false conflict, no need to resort to renvoi as the application of NJ law is like applying also Connecticut law
PFAU v. TRENT ALUMINUM CO.
Pfau
-domiciled in Connecticut
-Student of Iowa (Parsons College, Iowa)
Trent
-domiciled in NJ
-also a student of Iowa (Parsons College)
-Trent agreed to drive Pfau to Missouri using a car registered in NJ, insured in NJ, and insured by a carrier in NJ
-car collision (NJ registered car driven by Trent collided with Joseph Davis car when Trent failed to negotiate a curve) occurred in IOWA. Pfau incurred injuries.
-Pfau sues before an NJ court

IOWA Guest Statute	NJ and Connecticut Guest Statute
A host-driver is not liable to his passenger-guest for ordinary negligence	guest-passengers can recover from their host-divers for ordinary negligence
TRENT'S DEFENSE: he would not be liable	PFAU's argument: Trent is liable

>as Pfau is a domiciliary of Connecticut, it appears that Connecticut would have a significant interest in applying it's substantive law
>TRENT RAISES IOWA LAW AS A DEFENSE: Iowa law should apply. If apply Connecticut law, should apply conflict of law rules. As Connecticut adheres to LEX LOCI DELICTI, the law of the place where the incident happened should govern, i.e. Iowa law.
HELD: For PFAU!
1. Not definite that Pfau would be unable to recover in either Connecticut or Iowa
2. No reason for applying Connecticut's choice of law, as Connecticut's choice-of-law does not identify Connecticut's interest in the matter; does not relate to a state's interest in having its law applied to given issues in a tort case.
"since Iowa has no interest in this litigation, and since the substantive laws of Connecticut and NJ are the same, this case presents a false conflict and the Connecticut plaintiff should have the right to maintain an action for ordinary negligence.
***
BELLIS V. BELLIS
Amos Bellis
-born in Texas
-citizen of Texas
-executed a will in RP: all his property...
-had 2 marriages and some illegitimate children
Mary Mallen (1st wife)
-5 legit children in 1st marriage, 1 pre-deceased dad
Violet Kennedy (2nd wife)
-3 legit children
3 illegit children
-Oppositors-appellants
-Amos executed a will in the Philippines: estate to be divided as follows:
1. $40k to 1st wife
2. $120 to 3 illegit children ($40k each)
3. Remainder goes to 7 surviving children (it must be big!)
-will admitted for Probate in MANILA
-illegitimate children opposed project of partition: deprived of legitime as compulsory heirs
CFI:  applied law of the nationality of the person whose succession is in question - Texas law

Texas law	Philippine law
Did not provide for legitimes	Provided for legitimes

WON Texas law should apply? YES
-No renvoi in this case: same nationality, same domicile (both in Texas); besides, the opponents do not even rely on renvoi
-assuming there's a conflict-of-law rule in Texas providing that
...the law of the domicile should apply, still apply Texas law
…situs theory: properties are in RP so apply RP law
>>>but no proof that Texas has conflict-of-law situs theory
-defense 1 of oppositors: Art17, Par3 (which provides that Prohibitive laws in the Philippines shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments of foreign countries) is an exception to Art 16, par2 and A1039, which on the other hand provides that the national law of the decedent applies with regard 4 items:
(1) order of succession
(2) amount of successional rights (thus, legitimes)
(3) intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will
(4) capacity to suceed
>SC: Congress deleted in what supposedly is Art17 the phrase "notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next preceding article" which means that their purpose was to make the 2nd paragraph of Article 16 a specific provision in itself to be applied to testate and intestate successions
*whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has no intention to extend the same to the succession of FOREIGN NATIONALS. Specific provisions should prevail over general ones
-defense 2 of oppositors: decedent made 2 wills, supposedly 1 would govern Texas property and the other Philippine property. Thus, he intended Philippine law to apply to his Philippine estate
>SC: as was held in Miciano v. Brimo, a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law (and not the law of his nationality) is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Art10 and Art16 provides.