1. Personal law is determined either by a person's domicile (domiciliary theory) or nationality (nationality theory).
2. Philippine laws relating to family rights and duties, status, and capacity are binding on Filipino citizens even if living abroad. This includes obligations to support family and the intrinsic validity of marriages and contracts being determined by relevant law.
3. Foreign divorces obtained by Filipino citizens abroad will not be recognized in the Philippines, as status is determined by Philippine law as the law of their nationality. However, divorces obtained validly under another country's laws by foreign nationals will be recognized.
1. Personal law is determined either by a person's domicile (domiciliary theory) or nationality (nationality theory).
2. Philippine laws relating to family rights and duties, status, and capacity are binding on Filipino citizens even if living abroad. This includes obligations to support family and the intrinsic validity of marriages and contracts being determined by relevant law.
3. Foreign divorces obtained by Filipino citizens abroad will not be recognized in the Philippines, as status is determined by Philippine law as the law of their nationality. However, divorces obtained validly under another country's laws by foreign nationals will be recognized.
1. Personal law is determined either by a person's domicile (domiciliary theory) or nationality (nationality theory).
2. Philippine laws relating to family rights and duties, status, and capacity are binding on Filipino citizens even if living abroad. This includes obligations to support family and the intrinsic validity of marriages and contracts being determined by relevant law.
3. Foreign divorces obtained by Filipino citizens abroad will not be recognized in the Philippines, as status is determined by Philippine law as the law of their nationality. However, divorces obtained validly under another country's laws by foreign nationals will be recognized.
1. Personal law is determined either by a person's domicile (domiciliary theory) or nationality (nationality theory).
2. Philippine laws relating to family rights and duties, status, and capacity are binding on Filipino citizens even if living abroad. This includes obligations to support family and the intrinsic validity of marriages and contracts being determined by relevant law.
3. Foreign divorces obtained by Filipino citizens abroad will not be recognized in the Philippines, as status is determined by Philippine law as the law of their nationality. However, divorces obtained validly under another country's laws by foreign nationals will be recognized.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
1.
Theories of Personal Law
o Domiciliary Theory
Personal law of a person is determined by his domicile.
The theory whereby the status of the status, condition, rights and obligation and capacity of a person id governed by the law of his domicile or lex domicilii.
o Nationality Theory
The nationality or citizenship determines the as the basis of determining the
personal law applicable to individual.
Refers to a jurisdictional principle that citizens are subject to the laws of their country, no matter where the citizens are. This theory permits a country to apply its statutes to extraterritorial acts of its own nationals. 2. Personal Laws: a. Family rights and duties Philippine laws relating to family rights and duties are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
Example:
Obligation to give support between ascendants and descendants.
Article 194 of the Family Code provides that support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.
b. Status
If the status of a person is married here in the Philippines even though he secured a divorce decree abroad, his status will not change. It follows him were ever he may go. He remains as married.
Philippine laws relating to status and condition are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
c. Capacity Article 37 of NCC provides that capacity to act, which is the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost. 3. Marriages in relation to Article 26 FC Art. 26 of the New Civil Code provides that all marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by Executive Order 227) 4. Intrinsic Validity of Contracts
Intrinsic Validity of Contracts includes the consideration or cause thereof, the
interpretation of the instrument and the nature and amount of the damage in case of breach or non-performance must be governed by the “ proper law of the contract (lex contractus). This may be voluntarily agreed upon by the contracting parties (lex loci voluntatis) or the law intended by the parties expressly or impliedly (lex loci intentionis).
lex contractus- law of the contract
lex loci voluntatis – The law agreed upon by the contracting parties lex loci intentionis- the law intended by the parties expressly or impliedly.
5. Application of the foregoing rules
Nationality Principle In the case of Tenchavez v. Escano, 15 SCRA 355
It is equally clear from the record that the valid marriage between Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escaño remained subsisting and undissolved under Philippine law, notwithstanding the decree of absolute divorce that the wife sought and obtained on 21 October 1950 from the Second Judicial District Court of Washoe County, State of Nevada, on grounds of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character." At the time the divorce decree was issued, Vicenta Escaño, like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen.4 She was then subject to Philippine law, and Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Rep. Act No. 386), already in force at the time, expressly provided:
Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon the citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
Even more, the grant of effectivity in this jurisdiction to such foreign divorce decrees would, in effect, give rise to an irritating and scandalous discrimination in favor of wealthy citizens, to the detriment of those members of our polity whose means do not permit them to sojourn abroad and obtain absolute divorces outside the Philippines. Van Dorn v. Romillo, 139 SCRA 139 It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, 5 only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public police and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. 6 In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a court of competent jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic relation of husband and wife, and to free them both from the bond. The marriage tie when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either. A husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law. When the law provides, in the nature of a penalty. that the guilty party shall not marry again, that party, as well as the other, is still absolutely freed from the bond of the former marriage. Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property. Norma D. Del Socorro v. Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014 Philippine laws are concerned, specifically the provisions of the Family Code on support, the same only applies to Filipino citizens. By analogy, the same principle applies to foreigners such that they are governed by their national law with respect to family rights and duties. The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls under family rights and duties. Since the respondent is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC- Cebu that he is subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do so.
Constitution of the State of North Carolina and Copy of the Act of the General Assembly Entitled An Act to Amend the Constitution of the State of North Carolina
