PROPERTY

CON FLICT OF L AW

20XX 1
When Conflict Arises?

A conflict of law arises in the area of

property law when a foreign element is
involved in the case.

Example:

1. Foreigner owning property in

another country
2. Foreign law on land ownership
that conflicts with domestic law
Laurel v. Garcia

Facts:
• Philippine government owned properties in Japan which were part of the Reparation Agreement.
• Roponggi is the Japanese property which the Philippines wanted to sell or dispose of to a non
Filipino citizens and entities.
• First bidding was a failure
• Second bidding was restraint by our Court because property is part of public domain and
outside the commerce of men.

Issue:
WON Japanese or Philippine law should govern

Held:
Philippine law

Rationale:
• Japanese law was not presented to the court
• No conflict rule applies in the given case
Confl ict of law arises only when...

1. There is a dispute over the title or

ownership of an immovable, such
that the capacity to take and
transfer immovables, the
formalities of conveyance, the
essential validity and effect of the
transfer, or interpretation and
effect of the conveyance, are to be
determined.

2. A foreign law on land ownership

and its conveyance is asserted to
conflict with a domestic law on the
same matters.

4
Rule as to Real Property
Rule as to Real Property
Rule as to Personal Property

Old rule:
Mobilia sequuntur personam (movable property follows the law of the owner)

Present rule:
General Rule – Lex situs or where personal property is situated
Exception – Lies in the difference between personal properties:

1. Choses in possession – tangibles properties

2. Choses in action – intangibles properties (share of stocks, franchises and copyrights)

Reason for applying Lex Situs to Movables

3. Since personal property has no fixed status, an artificial one must be created
4. The new rule is simple
5. The new rule is stable
Chose in Possession
Chose in Action
Court Jurisdiction
Al tho ugh r ea l a nd p er s ona l p r ope r t ie s
a r e su bj ec t t o t he l aw s of t he p la c e
wh er e t hey a r e si t ua te d . C our t of
a not he r jur i sd i ct io n m ay a ct ua l ly s ubj ec t
t he p rop e r ty t o i ts po we r a nd a utho ri t y
us i ng the i ns tr um e nta li t ie s of the pa r t ie s
i n t he c as e .

10
Roberts v. Locke

Facts:
• A divorce case in Albany County, Wyoming
• The couple owned a beach property in Costa Rica that needs to be divided
• The court order both parties to sell their property and the proceeds, first to pay off their debt
related to the property and divide the remaining proceeds equally between them
• Roberts refused to abide the court order and instead of selling the property she leased it out to
another party.
• Court cited her in civil contempt.

Issue:
WON the District Court has the authority to order the sale of the Costa Rican property

Held:
Yes

Rationale:
Court of equity having jurisdiction over a person may act indirectly upon the person’s
extraterritorial real estate by ordering him or her to act or to cease to act in some particular way in
relation to the property.
Tayag v. Benguet

Facts:
• Idonah Slade Perkins died domiciled in New York.
• She owned properties in New York and Philippines and a domiciliary administrator was
appointed in New York by the New York courts, and an ancillary administrator was appointed in
the Philippines by the Philippine courts.
• To satisfy the legitimate claims of local creditors, the Philippine ancillary administrator asked the
New York administrator to surrender to the former two stock certificates owned by the deceased
in a Philippine corporation, the Benguet Consolidated, Inc. however the New York administrator
refused to do so.
• The court then ordered the Benguet Consolidated, Inc. to cancel said certificates and to issue
new certificates deliverable either to the ancillary administrator or to the Philippine probate
court.

Issue:
WON Philippines courts have power and authority over shares of stock held by a domiciliary
administrator.

Held:
Yes
Tayag v. Benguet cont..

Rationale:

The company must issue the new certificates because of the following reasons:

(a) While factually that the old certificates still exist, the same may, by judicial fiction be
considered as LOST — in view of the refusal of the New York administrator to surrender them,
despite a lawful order of our courts. To deny the remedy would be derogatory to the dignity of the
Philippine judiciary. The ancillary Philippine administrator is entitled to the possession of said
certificates so that he can perform his duty as such administrator.

A contrary finding by any foreign court or entity would be inimical to the honor of our country.
After all, an administrator appointed in one state has no power over property matters in another
state. (Leon and Ghessi v. Manufacturer’s Life Ins. Co., 99 Phil. 459 [1951]).

(b) The Company has nothing to fear about contingent liability should the new certificates be
issued. Its obedience to a lawful court order certainly constitutes a valid defense.
 1987 Constitution

Sec 7, Art XII

Save i n ca s es of he r ed i ta r y s ucc es s i on,

no pr i vat e l a nds s ha l l be t rans fer r ed o r
c onveyed e xce pt t o ind i vi dua ls ,
c or po ra ti ons , or as s oc i a ti ons q ua li fi e d t o
a cq ui r e or hol d l a nds o f the pub l ic
d oma i n

14
 Rami rez v. Vda. De Rami rez Matthews v. Taylor

Facts: Facts:
• Jose Ramirez died leaving a will where he granted a • Benjamin Taylor, British citizen, was married to
usufruct over a real property in favor an alien, Wanda Joselyn Taylor, a Filipino citizen.
Wrobleski. This was opposed on the ground that it • They purchased a property in Boracay islands.
violated the Constitution • Subsequently they fell out of love
• Joselyn later leased the property to petitioner Philip
Issue: Matthews who took over the property.
WON the testamentary disposition is valid • Benjamin filed an action for Declaration of nullity of
the lease on the ground that his funds were used in
Held: the acquisition of the property and the lease was
Yes executed without his consent

Rationale: Issue:
We uphold the usufruct in favor of Wanda because a WON Benjamin has the right to nullify the lease
usufruct, albeit a real right, does not vest title to the land
in the usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to land in Held:
favor of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution. No.

Rationale:
Alien is prohibited from acquiring private and public lands
in the Philippines.
Llantino v. Co Liong Chong

Facts:
• The Llantinos executed a lease agreement with Co Liong Chong, Chinese national, over a commercial-
residential land
• Co Liong Chong become a naturalized Filipino
• The parties were in disagreement as to the term of the lease as the Llantinos claimed it to be only for 13
years while Chong claimed it to be 60 years
• The Llantinos filed an action to quiet title with the Court of First Instance which dismissed the action and
sustained the claim of Chong.

Issue:
WON the 60-year lease is valid

Held:
Yes

Rationale:
A lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid. So is an option giving an alien the right to buy real property
on condition that he is granted Philippine citizenship. Aliens are not completely excluded by the Constitution
from use of lands for residential purposes. Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary, they may be
granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution. Should they desire
to remain here forever and share our fortune and misfortune, Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire.
 1987 Constitution

Sec 8, Art XII

Not hw it hs ta nd in g the p r ovis i on of

Se ct io n 7 o f t his Ar ti c le , a na t ura l b or n
c it i ze n of t he P hi li pp i ne s who ha s lo s t
hi s P hi li p pi ne c it i zens hi p may b e a
t ra ns fe r ee o f p ri va te l a nds , s ub je ct t o
l im it a t ions p rov id ed b y law

17
Condominium Act of the Phils

R.A. No. 4726

A m e n d e d b y R A N o . 7 8 9 9 , a l l o w s fo r e i g n e r t o
own units in the condominium building. It
must be noted that the condominium buildings
is owned by a condominium corporation which
is subject to ownership requirements under
the constitution. Hence, they must comply
w i t h t h e 6 0 - 4 0 p e r c e n t a g e ra t i o i n f a v o r o f
Filipino citizens or corporation.

18
Summary

Real and personal property follows the lex

situs rule, with exceptions provided by law.

Courts has jurisdiction over properties of

another place through the instrumentalities of
the parties in the case.
The law prohibits alien from acquiring private
and public lands in the Philippines

20XX 19
References:
Conflict of Law by Pe Benito
Conflict of Law by Paras
Supreme Court cases
Pictures downloaded from google

Thank you