Conflict of Laws Doctrines

IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

•       Lex situs (where the property is situated)

–      character of immovable property as an isolated object (law of the place where the land is situated)

Immovable property as the factor not the parties

MOVABLE PROPERTY

•       Lex domicilii (owner’s domicile)

•       Lex situs (where the property is situated)

•       Lex loci actus (place where the transaction was completed and the proper law of the forum)

Proper law of transfer (state which has the most real connection with the transfer)

Article 16 of the Civil Code

“Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the place where it is situated”

CAPACITY TO TRANSFER OR ACQUIRE

•       Law of the place where the property is located

EXTRINSIC AND INTRINSIC VALIDITY

•       The formalities of a contract to convey property are governed by the lex situs.

•       Lex situs also applies to the essential validity of the transfer unless the lex intentionis is clearly established.

•       The lex situs also governs the effects of the conveyance of properties.

EXCEPTIONS TO LEX SITUS RULE

•       Where the transaction does not affect transfer of title to or ownership of the land. In this case the proper law of the transfer which is the lex intentionis or lex voluntatis is the governing law.

•       In contracts where real property is offered by way of security for the performance of an obligation such as loan, the principal contract is the loan while the mortgage of the land is only an accessory. The mortgage of the land is governed by the rule of lex situs but the loan contract is governed by the rules on ordinary contracts.

•       Testate and intestate succession and capacity to succeed are governed by the national law of the decedent. (Article 16, par. 2, Civil Code)

Kuroda v Jalandoni, 83 Phil 171

Facts

Shinegori Kuroda, a former Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines was charged before the Philippine Military Commission for war crimes. As he was the commanding general during such period of war, he was tried for failure to discharge his duties and permitting the brutal atrocities and other high crimes committed by his men against noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Japanese forces, in violation of of the laws and customs of war.

Kuroda, in his petition, argues that the Military Commission is not a valid court because the law that created it, Executive Order No. 68, is unconstitutional. He further contends that using as basis the Hague Convention’s Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare for the war crime committed cannot stand ground as the Philippines was not a signatory of such rules in such convention. Furthermore, he alleges that the United States is not a party of interest in the case and that the two US prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines.