Jurisdiction purchaser of airplane ticket and the carrier.

Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, the

complaint could be instituted only in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, before:
1. The court of the domicile of the carrier;
2. The court of its principal place of business;
3. The court where it has a place of business through which the contract had been made;
4. The court of the place of destination
Thus, not in the domicile of the purchaser.

Thus, having acquired jurisdiction, it is now for the Philippine Court, based on the facts of the case,
whether to give due course to the suit or dismiss it, on the principle of forum non conveniens. Hence,
the Philippine Court may refuse to assume jurisdiction in spite of its having acquired jurisdiction.
Conversely, the court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the
following requisites are met:
1) That the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;
2) That the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the
facts; and,
3) That the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.

The doctrine of forum non-conveniens, literally meaning 'the forum is inconvenient', emerged in private
international law to deter the practice of global forum shopping, that is to prevent non-resident litigants
from choosing the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for malicious reasons, such as to secure
procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a
more friendly venue. Under this doctrine, a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its
jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the parties are not precluded
from seeking remedies elsewhere.

It should not be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court
does not include said doctrine as a ground. This Court further ruled that while it is within the discretion
of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital
facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require the court's desistance; and
that the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle of forum non conveniens requires a
factual determination, hence it is more properly considered a matter of defense.

The rule followed by most legal systems, however, is that the intrinsic validity of a contract must be
governed by the lex contractus or "proper law of the contract." This is the law voluntarily agreed upon
by the parties (the lex loci voluntatis) or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly (the lex
loci intentionis). The law selected may be implied from such factors as substantial connection with the
transaction, or the nationality or domicile of the parties. Philippine courts would do well to adopt the

1
first and most basic rule in most legal systems, namely, to allow the parties to select the law applicable
to their contract, subject to the limitation that it is not against the law, morals, or public policy of the
forum and that the chosen law must bear a substantive relationship to the transaction.

Where there is no express choice of the law that would govern it. In the United States and Europe, the
two rules that now seem to have emerged as "kings of the hill" are (1) the parties may choose the
governing law; and (2) in the absence of such a choice, the applicable law is that of the State that "has
the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties." Another authority proposed that all
matters relating to the time, place, and manner of performance and valid excuses for nonperformance
are determined by the law of the place of performance or lex loci solutionis, which is useful because it
is undoubtedly always connected to the contract in a significant way

A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until the
contrary is shown. It is also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and the giving of due
notice therein. Consequently, the party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the
presumption of its validit (processual presumption).

It is settled that matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the service of process upon
a defendant are governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum. In this case, it is the
procedural law of Japan where the judgment was rendered that determines the validity of the
extraterritorial service of process on Sharp. As to what this law is is a question of fact, not of law. It may
not be taken judicial notice of and must be pleaded and proved like any other fact. Sections 24 and 25,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provide that it may be evidenced by an official publication or by a duly
attested or authenticated copy thereof. It was then incumbent upon Sharp to present evidence as to
what that Japanese procedural law is and to show that under it, the assailed extraterritorial service is
invalid. It did not. Accordingly, the presumption of validity and regularity of the service of summons and
the decision thereafter rendered by the Japanese court must stand.

TORTS
the connecting factor or point of contact could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or
lex loci actus occurred.

In applying State of the most significant relationship rule, to determine the State which has the most
significant relationship, the following contacts are to be taken into account and evaluated according to
their relative importance with respect to the particular issue:
(a) the place where the injury occurred;
(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
(c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and
(d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.

2
A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed
either as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law.

However the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant
when the country of the forum (local Court) has a borrowing statute. Said statute has the practical
effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance. A borrowing statute directs
the state of the forum (local Court) to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending claims
based on a foreign law. While there are several kinds of borrowing statutes, one form provides
that an action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued will not be enforced in the forum
even though the local statute was not run against it.

Section 48 of Code of Civil Procedure is of this kind. It provides: If by the laws of the state or
country where the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippine
Islands. However, the courts of the forum (local Court) will not enforce any foreign claim
obnoxious to the forums public policy.

Lex loci celebrationis relates to the law of the place of the ceremony or the law of the place where
a contract is made.
The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci contractus means the law of the place where a contract is
executed or to be performed. It controls the nature, construction, and validity of the contract and it
may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the law intended by them either
expressly or implicitly.
Under the state of the most significant relationship rule, to ascertain what state law to apply to a
dispute, the court should determine which state has the most substantial connection to the
occurrence and the parties. In a case involving a contract, the court should consider where the
contract was made, was negotiated, was to be performed, and the domicile, place of business, or
place of incorporation of the parties. This rule takes into account several contacts and evaluates
them according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be resolved.
Since these three principles in conflict of laws make reference to the law applicable to a dispute,
they are rules proper for the second phase, the choice of law. They determine which state's law is to
be applied in resolving the substantive issues of a conflicts problem.

Necessarily, as the only issue in this case is that of jurisdiction, choice-of-law rules are not only
inapplicable but also not yet called for. they have not yet pointed out any conflict between the laws
of Japan and ours. Before determining which law should apply, first there should exist a conflict of
laws situation requiring the application of the conflict of laws rules. Also, when the law of a foreign
country is invoked to provide the proper rules for the solution of a case, the existence of such law
must be pleaded and proved.

3
When a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is brought before a court or administrative
agency, there are three alternatives open to the latter in disposing of it: (1) dismiss the case, either
because of lack of jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction over the case; (2) assume jurisdiction
over the case and apply the internal law of the forum; or (3) assume jurisdiction over the case and
take into account or apply the law of some other State or States.

DOMICILE

Article 50 of the Civil Code decrees that "[f]or the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil
obligations, the domicile of natural persons is their place of habitual residence." In a past case, the
Court took the concept of domicile to mean an individual's "permanent home", "a place to which,
whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and
circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent."
Thus, domicile is composed of the two elements of:
(1.) The fact of residing/physical presence in a fixed place; and
(2.) Animus manendi - the intention of returning permanently.

Residence on the other hand merely refers to the factual relationship of an individual to a certain
place. It is mere physical presence. Residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for
which the resident has taken up his abode ends. If a person's intent be to remain, it becomes his
domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. Domicile is
residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time.

Article 50 of the Civil Code decrees that "[f]or the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil
obligations, the domicile of natural persons is their place of habitual residence." In a past case, the
Court took the concept of domicile to mean an individual's "permanent home", "a place to which,
whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and
circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent." Thus, domicile is composed of the two
elements of: (1.) The fact of residing/physical presence in a fixed place; and (2.) Animus manendi -
the intention of returning permanently. Residence on the other hand merely refers to the factual
relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is mere physical presence. Residence involves the
intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. If a person's
intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is
established it is residence. Domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for an
unlimited time.

To successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner must prove an actual removal or an actual
change of domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and
establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose. In the absence of clear
and positive proof, the domicile of origin should be deemed to continue.

4
The residency requirement of a voter is at least one (1) year residence in the Philippines and
at least six (6) months in the place where the person proposes or intends to vote. Residence, as
used in the law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for elective office, is doctrinally
settled to mean domicile, importing not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention inferable from a persons
acts, activities, and utterances. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence where, when absent
for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. In the consideration of
circumstances obtaining in each particular case, three rules must be borne in mind, namely: (1) that
a person must have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2) once established, it remains until a new
one is acquired;and (3) that a person can have but one residence or domicile at a time.

Domicile is not easily lost. To successfully effect a transfer thereof, one must demonstrate:
(1) an actual removal or change of domicile;
(2) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one;
and
(3) acts which correspond with that purpose. There must be animus manendi coupled with animus
non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite
period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place
chosen for the new domicile must be actual.

CITIZENSHIP
An alien woman may be deemed a citizen of the Philippines by virtue of her marriage to a Filipino
citizen only if she possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications.

because these are the explicit requisites provided by law for an alien to be naturalized. Section 15 of
the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473) provides that Any woman who is now
or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully
naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines. Section 15 was obviously to accord to an
alien woman, by reason of her marriage to a Filipino, a privilege not similarly granted to other
aliens.

Moreover, an alien who married a Filipino should not possess any of the disqualifications
enumerated in Section 4 of the Naturalization Law. There is no need as well of submitting to any
naturalization proceedings under the Naturalization Law. An alien woman married to a Filipino
citizen needs only to show that she "might herself be lawfully naturalized" in order to acquire
Philippine citizenship. Compliance with other conditions of the statute, such as those relating to the
qualifications of an applicant for naturalization through judicial proceedings, is not necessary. In
other words, disqualification for any of the causes enumerated in Section 4 of the Act is the decisive
factor that defeats the right of the foreign wife of a Philippine citizen to acquire Philippine
citizenship.

5
In addition, an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalised here follows the
Philippines citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided
that she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4. Section 4 1. Person
opposed to organised government or affiliate with any associations or group of persons who uphold
and teach doctrines opposing all organised governments. 2. Persons defending or teaching the
necessity of propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and
predominance of their ideas. 3. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy. 4. Persons
convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. 5. Persons suffering from mental alienation or
incurable contagious diseases. 6. Persons who, during the period of their residence in the
Philippines, have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to
learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos. 7. Citizens or subjects of
nations with whom the Philippines are at war, during the period of such war. 8. Citizens or subjects
of a foreign country other than United States, whose laws does not grant Filipinos the right to
become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.