PRIL December 8 Lecture

Renvoi

-one of the escape devices resorted by the court to escape the injustice brought about by the mechanical application of a theory

*but you can see that the courts would do what they want to do: you can't really predict what the court would do

Article 15, NCC: national law governs personal law of a person

(family law, status…)

-when renvoi, foreign law would apply either forum law's state,

Or a third state.

e.g. in marriage

Example 1:

Husband is a national of country 1

Wife is a national of country 2

Marriage was celebrated in country 3

Example 2:

Husband and wife are nationals of country 1

They live in country 2

If forum is Philippines, not just look at Family code, can also look at:

*Civil Code

*Constitution (as to ownership of a foreigner of real properties in RP)

Example 3:

Citizens of Canada

Married in Australia

Properties in the Philippines

What if Canadian national law: Absolute Community Property

Australia provide CPG

…both provides that both husband and wife jointly own the properties…

But in RP where the property is located, prohibit foreigners from owning property!

APPROACHES IN DEALING WITH RENVOI

e.g. Forum court: state A >>>>refers jural matter to State B (not yet renvoi)

State B's law would either be Internal law or choice of law/conflict of law rules

*if State B refers to State A following its internal law, State A rejects renvoi

*if State B refers to State A following its conflict of law rules, State A is accepting renvoi

"referral of State B" not really referral, we don't know anyone from State B. So lawyer of party arguing laws of State B are applicable, lawyer should do the research. Law would be pleaded and proved before the forum court. Court would then have option of accepting or rejecting the foreign law.

Aznar v. Garcia

-will gave only P3600 to acknowledged natural child, while the rest was given to the other legitimate daughter. Acknowledged natural child opposed, arguing her legitimes (in accordance with Philippine law) was denied of her. So what law applies?

H: In the end, Philippine law applied.

_Philippine court refers to California law (place of nationality)

_California court refers to Philippine law (place of domicile)

_Philippine law would now apply its internal law = legitimes protected!

*Court accepted the renvoi  to protect the rights of a natural child acknowledged by the decedent

CON: It's up to the courts when to apply renvoi - subject to abuse!

MUTUAL DISCLAIMER

-laws are passed to apply to a certain group of people - the citizens of that state!

FOREIGN COURT APPROACH

-forum court acts as if it's the foreign court

-Difficulties of Renvoi: How would the forum court know how the foreign law would rule

ANNESLEY V. ANNESLEY

-English subject lives in Francem, executed a will in France wherein she disposed more than 1/3 of her estate in favor of her daughter. However, French law does not allow such disposition of property

H: French law would apply - only dispose 1/3 of her estate through the will

-English law referred case to law of the domicile (French law)

-French law referred case to law of nationality (English law)

-English law referred it back to law of domicile (French law)

-Now English law thought of how French courts would have decided - and concluded that it would apply its own law - thus testatrix is limited to 1/3 disposition of her estate through a will

*shows why renvoi is criticized: eternal reference from one law to another!

USEFULNESS OF RENVOI

-avoid unjust results

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO V. DATER

-2 couples entered a trust agreement and mortgage with a Chicago creditor. The loan was performed in Chicago, but the agreements were perfected (was signed by the parties) in Michigan.

-After death of husband, the wife was deemed by the creditor to substitute her husband. When they failed to pay the loan, foreclosure of the properties was initiated and the debtors, including Mrs. Price, was being held liable.

H: Not liable, irrelevant if Michigan law or Illinois law applies

…

*use of renvoi in this case: court interested in protecting their own citizens.

-prevent injustice

…thus shows that it is an escape device

WHEN RENVOI INAPPLICABLE

False conflict: apparently, there's conflict between the laws in 2 states but not both states have interest in applying its own laws

PFAU (FAW) V. TRENT ALUMINUM CO.

-Pfau domiciled in Connecticut, Trent domiciled in NJ, both students in Iowa, injury happened in Iowa. Pfau got injured from negligence of Trent, so sued Trent before NJ courts.

-NJ and Connecticut law both allows recovery from injuries resulting from ordinary negligence

H: Used MODERN APPROACH: determined which state has more interest in applying its laws - in this case, Connecticut (to protect its domiciliary)

-did not use Renvoi

*false conflict because the 2 places where the closer and most significatn relationship to the parties as well as to other factors, those 2 places had no conflicting laws

BELLIS V. BELLIS

-domiciliary and national of TEXAS, owned properties (personal property) in RP

H: No real conflict!