*PRIL lecture January 26 (tuesday)

-volunteer daw
-in RP: lex situs for both movable and immovable properties (Art 16)
Why: for simplicity and convenience
Difference if traditional reason or policy-centered approach?
Traditional approach: centers on the territory: since it is part of the territory of the state, it is the state's law which would govern
Policy-oriented: most significant contacts, state whose interest is less impaired
Other laws which may apply as to movable properties:
*lex domicili
*Lex loci actus
*proper law of transfer
*~*~*~
Anton volunteered to recite…ayaw ni ma'am. Baka kasi tangerine ang color scheme nila. :p
Capacity to transfer or acquire property
-does the lex loci rule apply?
----review: general rule on capacity: the personal law of the person
Insular vs. Frank: controlling law was lex loci contractus but did not discuss capacity to enter the contract, according to which the lex nationalii would apply - but result would still be the same
*in Property: it's not the same, quite different (does not follow the personal law of the person) = lex situs applies!
Llantino v. Co Liong Chong
-Chinese national entered a contract w/ Filipinos for lease of a land in RP for 60 years. Court held that the lease is valid, and anyways, if it had an option for the lessee to buy the property, the lease would still be valid because Chinese already became a Filipino citizen.
*Ma'am: it's merely TEMPORARY possession of property - not ownership
Why prohibit ownership of lands of aliens? To preserve properties in favor of Filipinos
Cheesman v. IAC American married to a Filipina. Filipina wife sold land and house on it, initially w/o protest from American husband, but later contesting it, raising that the sale was made w/o his knowledge and consent. Court held that since he is an alien who is prohibitted from owning land in RP, he cannot claim that he has a share in the conjugal property and thus, has no legal standing to void the sale.
-PFR review: administration and management of property is jointly exercised by spouses
…so what happens now?
---Aliens can't have conjugal properties, or else would contravene Consti provisions prohibiting ownership of aliens
---possibly, alien spouse may still exercise share in conjugal properties if it is converted to movable properties, i.e. cash!!!! - but as long as it is immovable, can't own anything
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Validity of Conveyances
-formalities: lex situs rin (follows general rule)
e.g. in RP, sale of property formalities:
*in public document
*registered
*signed by both parties
EXCEPTIONS
1. Transaction does not affect transfer of title to or ownership of the land
-lex intentionis or lex voluntatis
2. When transaction is merely an accessory to a principal contract
3. Succession
-personal law
Why not lex situs applied?
Li-je-dal
LILJEDAHL V. GLASSGOW
Short summary: Morgagee sues the transferee of the Mortgagor for the amount due. Transferee argues that in accordance with lex situs (in Colorado where the property is located), he is not liable. The court held that he is, it being assumed that the parties contracted w/ the reference to lex contractus (in Iowa).
*since it did not directly relate to the transfer of title, law of the place of contracting applies
As to Exception # 2:
2 contracts:
4. Principal contract (loan)
5. Accessory contract (security)
"In the ideal world, your name should be worth something" - Ma'am Beth
EXCEPTIONS: the law DOES NOT CONSIDER here the property to be the main issue!
SITUS OF PERSONAL PROPERTIES FOR
*TAX PURPOSES
-Can't apply mobilia sequuntur personam
-a state can tax everything found in its territory
mobilia sequuntur personam
(law, archaic) Common law doctrine holding that personal property held by a person is governed by the same law that governs that person, so that if a person who is legally domiciledin one jurisdiction dies with property in a second jurisdiction, that property is legally treated as though it were in the first jurisdiction.
Asiatic Petroleum v. Co Quico
Short summary: Co Quico was an agent of Asiatic Petroleum who defaulted in payment of the proceeds of his sale for the latter company. Company filed suit to recover amount, attached his bank deposits w/ Mercantile Bank of China. Court held that said attachment and execution from the property, even w/o having jurisdiction over Co Quico who was in China at that time, is valid.
*MONEY
LEON V. MANUFACTURERS LIEF INSURANCE CO.
-where the money is found
*DEBTS
HARRIS V. BALK
Short summary: Harris owed Balk $180 (in North Carolina), who owed more than $300 to Epstein (in Maryland). When Harris was in Maryland, Epstein served a writ of attachment to the debt of Harris to Balk. Back in North Carolina, Balk wanted to collect from Harris. The court held that payment of Harris to Epstein absolved him from any liability to Balk.
-in this case: debt - follow law where the debtor can be found
*SHARES OF STOCKS
-found in the state where it is located - domicile of the corporation
>>>review in Capital Gains Tax!!!
Report of Mr. Del Puerto
-get copy from Jericho