FOREIGN ELEMENT AS A FACTUAL QUESTION - 30 PJP 21

Date Published:
  1. RECOMMENDED CITATION: DELA PEÑA, Mark Angelo S. (2024), “Foreign Element as a Factual Question,” 30 PJP 21, available at <insert link> (last accessed on <date>).
  2. PJP BLOG: Although this content has received a favorable recommendation for citation from the admin team of PJP, it is not yet considered a peer-reviewed journal entry.
  3. CONTACT US: For immediate action on requests, comments, concerns, suggestions, and other forms of feedback, please message us on Facebook at www.m.me/projectjurisprudence.

Foreign element as a question of fact

Foreign elements, just like foreign laws, are factual questions. They must be part of the records supported by evidence.

For example, the foreign nationality of a party may be judicially admitted by the parties or proved via proper evidence such as their birth certificate or a certificate from competent authority. Also, whether the contract was perfected or performed in a foreign country should be proved in evidence or, at least, stipulated into by the parties.

Foreign factual matters that do not require the application of foreign laws

As stated above, the existence of a foreign factual matter does not automatically mean that the dispute is a conflicts case. The factual situation must invite the application of foreign law. In other words, if a case contains a foreign factual matter but the application of Philippine domestic laws is sufficient to resolve the matter, there is no need to look into Philippine private international law rules.

For example, if persons are considered dual citizens due to the concurrent application of the principles of jus sanguinis and jus soli, their eligibility to run for public office in the Philippines may be sufficiently resolved by the application of Philippine municipal law. Owing to the effective or master nationality principle, such persons are treated as having only one effective nationality insofar as the forum is concerned. Thus, there would be no need to plead and prove the other state’s laws.

Another example would be a situation in which two Japanese citizens enter into a contract of loan while residing in the Philippines, expressly stipulating that the same should be payable in Japanese Yen. This is sufficiently addressed by Article 1249 of the NCC, which provides: “The payment of debts in money shall be made in the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines.” There is no need for the Philippine court to look into Japanese law simply because the contract makes the debt payable in Japanese Yen. In short, such stipulation does not invite or call for the application of foreign law.

[MISSING CITATIONS]