1. What is CharacterizationThe process of determining under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall, the ultimate purpose of which is enable the forum to select the proper law. 2. Three impt steps in characterization

a. Characterization of questionsb. Selection of the proper lawc. Application of the proper law3. What is renvoiIs a procedure whereby a jural matter is presented which the conflict of laws rules of the forum refer to a foreign law, the conflict of law of which in turn, refers the matter back to the law of the forum (remission) or a third state (transmission)

4. What is the Renvoi Problemliterally means referring back : problem arises when there is doubt as to whether a reference to a foreign law is a reference to the internal law of said foreign law; oris a reference to the whole of the foreign, including its conflicts rule

5. What are the various ways of dealing with the problem of Renvoi (case)6. How is Renvoi useful (case)7. How are foreign laws proved?a. What is the extent of Judicial Noticeb. Proof?8. Who are Natural born citizens?9. Who are citizens by naturalization?10. What is the procedure for naturalizationCasesGibbs vs Govt of PH IslandsFACTS: Petitioner Allison Gibbs was the husband of the deceased Eva Gibbs. Both were citizen and domiciliary of California at the time of Eva Gibbs death. During the existence of their marriage, the spouses acquire parcel of lands located in the Phil. When Eva died Allison the petitioner then went to the Register of Deeds and demanded the latter to issue to him a transfer certificate of title but the Register of Deeds refused to issue and to register the transfer of title in favor of Allison. So he went to the court praying that the Register of Deeds shall issue a corresponding title to him without requiring previous payment of any inheritance tax because they are citizens and residents of California therefore Californian law will apply, which provides that community property of spouses who are citizens of California, upon the death of the wife previous to that of the husband belongs, absolutely to the husband without admissionISSUE: Which law shall apply (California or Phil)HELD: The Phil. law shall apply because the property in question was located in the Phil. PH follows the Lex situs rule which holds that real property as well as personal property shall be subject to the law of the country where it is situated, irrespective of the domicile of the parties or of the place where the marriage was celebrated. Following lex rei sitae, the law to govern is PH Law. Note: Although the court was silent about characterization, it is apparent that it was faced with the task of categorizing the issue in Gibbs as one involving real property governed by the lex situs rule or one of succession governed by the national law of the decedent.

Cadalin vs POEA AdministratorFacts: Cadalin et al filed a class suit against AIB Corporation and BRII (Brown and Root Intl Inc.) for money claims arising from their recruitment and employment which they claim to have been prematurely terminated. Some of the individual complainants were deployed in Bahrain. It was established that during their period of employment, the Amir of Bahrain issued an Amiri Decree providing that any claims arising from employment shall not be actionable after the lapse of one year from the date of expiry of the contract. Applying the Amiri decree, NLRC dismissed the class suit on the ground of prescription. Issue: What law is to be applied for the purpose of determining prescription, the Amiri decree or a PH law?Held: A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in conflict of laws in the sense that it may be viewed as either procedural or substantive depending on the characterization given. In the PH we do have a borrowing statute under the Code of Civil procedure which provides that when the under the laws of the country where the cause of action arose, an action has prescribed, it is also barred in the PH islands. However, in the light of the 1987 Constitution, said borrowing statute cannot apply. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign law obnoxious to the forums public policy. To enforce the Amiri decree would contravene with the public policy of protection of labor. What applies is the PH law.

Aznar vs GarciaFacts: Edward Christensen was a citizen of California. He came to the Phl. where he became a domiciliary till the time of his death. Before he died he executed a will instituting his natural child Maria as his only heir to his estate but left a legacy P3600 in favor of Helen also his acknowledge natural child. Helen claims that she was deprived of her legitime, she claims that our Phil. law that should be applied because Art. 16 par.2 of the Civil Code, California law should be applied, that under California law the matter is referred back to the law of domicile, that therefore Phil. law is ultimately applicable, that finally therefore her share shall be increased in view of the successional rights of illegitimate children under Phil. law. Maria contends that it is clear that under Art.16 par.2 of Civil Code, the national of the ceased must apply, our courts must apply the internal law of California that there are no compulsory heirs and consequently a testator could dispose of any property possessed by him in absolute dominion and that illegitimate children not being entitled to anything under California law.Issue: Which law shall apply? Held: PH law shall apply. Under the PH law, the national law of Edward Christensen shall apply. However, a close examination of California law suggests that it has 2 rules. The first applies to resident citizens and the other is the conflict rule.Applying the conflicts rule of California, the matter is refered back to the PH Law because the California conflicts law provides that said properties shall be governed by the law of the decedents domicile. So instead of applying PH law which will only refer the matter back to California law, the Court dealt with the problem by applying the conflicts rule of California law wherein the subject properties are now governed by PH laws. Bellis vs BellisFacts: Amos Bellis, a citizen of Texas USA was survived by his first and 2nd wife, 6 legitimate children and 3 illegitimate children. He executed a will in the PH and died a resident of Texas. Upon distribution of the estate in accordance of the will, the illegitimate children opposed the project of partition on the ground that they are deprived of their legitime under the PH law. The CFI of Manila (probate court) dismissed the opposition on the ground that it is Texas law and not PH law that governs order and amount of successional rights under Art. 16 of the Civil Code. Issue: Does the Renvoi doctrine find application in the case at barHeld: the renvoi doctrine is ussually applied when the decedent is a national of one country and a domicile of another. In the present case, it is not disputed that Amos Bellis was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death. Thus, even assuming that Texas has a conflict rule providing that the domiciliary system should govern, the same would not result to the refering back to PH law but still would refer to texas law. Nonetheless, if texas has a conflicts rule adopting the situs theory, rencoi would arise since the properties involved in the instant case are located in the PH. IN RE: Estate of JohnsonFacts: In proving that Emil Johnson was a citizen of Illinois and that the holographic will he left behind was made in accordance of the law of Illinois, what has been relied by the trial court was a copy of Illinois Statutes. It further showed that no witness was examined with reference to the law of Illinois on the subject of the execution of the will. Despite this, the trial judge admitted the holographic will to probateIssue: May the trial judge take judicial notice of the laws of illinois?Held: No. The old civil procedure requires judges to take judicial notice of the laws enacted by the Congress of the United States. This does not mean that courts are required to take judicial notice to the multifarious laws of the american states. The proper rule would be to require proof of the Statutes of the states of the American union whenever their provisions are determinative of any actions litigated in the PH. Delgado vs RepublicPH Commercial Trust Bank vs EscolinFacts: This is a case between the administrators of the deceased spouse Linnie Hodges and Charles Hodges. The spouses are residents of the PH but are citizens of Texas USA. PCIB as administrator of Mr Hodges contends that being residents of PH and citizens of Texas, renvoi doctrine applies which is why PH law should govern. This means that the estate of Mrs. Hodges should not be more than of her share in the Conjugal partnership. Magno, the administratrix of Mrs Hodge contends that there is no renvoi. Texas law applies under which there is no system of legitime. Issues: Is their a need to ascertain the laws of texas. Held: .Elementary is the rule that foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proven like any other fact in dispute between the parties in any proceeding, with the rare exception in instances when:a. the said laws are already within the actual knowledge of the court, b. they are well and generally known or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and c. none of the parties concerned claim otherwise.

PH Trust Company vs Bobonan

Facts: The will of C.O. Bohanan was admitted to probate by the CFI of Manila and for that purpose he is considered as a citizen of Nevada USA. The PH Trust Co. named as executor was ordered to enter upon the execution and performance of the trust. In the hearing for the proposed project of partition Nevada law was not produced. Bohanans widow questioned the validity of the will under PH Law which gave to a grandson 90,819.67 and of the shares of stock in several mining companies which in effect deprived his compulsory heirs of their proper legitime under PH Law. If Nevada law is to be apply, the will is valid since the same law allows a testator to dispose all of his property by will.

Issue: (1) WON Nevada Law was properly pleaded and proved (2) What law is to be applied, the foreign law or the law of the forum

Held: (1) It was not properly pleaded and proved. At the time of the hearing of the project of partition, the pertinent provision of the Nevada law was not introduced in evidence when it was the executors duty to do so. The Law of Nevada being a foreign law, can only be proved in our courts in the manner provided by our Rules. (Official publication or a copy attested by officer having legal custody).(2) Nevertheless, the court applied Nevada law since in a former motion by Magdalena Bohanan, it was shown that she herself has introduced and relied upon the Nevada law when she asked to withdraw her share. In addition, the children of the testator did not dispute the Nevada law. Hence, given the peculiar circumstances of the case, the court took judicial notice of the law of Nevada without proof of such law having been offered at the hearing of the project of partition.