The document you provided is a legal text from November 29, 1920, pertaining to an application for

admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. The applicant, Max Shoop, sought admission based on
his previous admission and practice in the highest court of the State of New York. The document
discusses whether Shoop's admission to practice in New York should be recognized in the Philippines
under the relevant rules.

Here is a summary of the main points:

1. Application for Admission: Max Shoop applied for admission to practice law in the Philippines.

2. Rules for Admission: The document references specific rules that govern the admission of
attorneys in the Philippines. These rules allow for the admission of attorneys without examination
if they meet certain criteria.

3. Comity Requirement: The key requirement discussed in the document is whether New York
State, where Max Shoop was admitted to practice law, offers similar privileges to attorneys
admitted in the Philippines. In other words, does New York have a reciprocal arrangement
allowing Filipino attorneys to practice without examination?

4. The Status of the Philippine Islands: The document considers whether the Philippine Islands
should be considered a "territory" within the meaning of the New York rule, which could allow for
reciprocity. It discusses the legal status of the Philippines within the United States.

5. The Extent of English Common Law Influence: The document also examines the extent to
which the legal system in the Philippines is based on English Common Law principles. It discusses
the influence of the English Common Law on Philippine jurisprudence.

6. American and English Legal Influence: The text points out that American and English legal
principles have had a significant impact on the legal system in the Philippines. It acknowledges
the role of these principles in guiding the courts when interpreting and applying laws.

In summary, this document deals with the question of whether an attorney who has been admitted to
practice in New York should be granted admission in the Philippines without taking an examination. It
examines issues related to comity, the legal status of the Philippine Islands, and the influence of English
Common Law on the local legal system. The document provides a legal analysis to determine whether
such admission should be granted.

The text discusses the legal framework and the development of law in the Philippine Islands in the
context of changes in sovereignty, particularly the transition from Spanish to American rule. Here's a
summary of the key points:

1. Laws in the Philippines: The text mentions various laws that were in force in the Philippines
due to changes in sovereignty, including the Las Siete Partidas, Las Leyes de Toro, Leyes de las
Indias, La Novisima Recopilacion, Mining Law, Notarial Law, Spanish Military Code, and Copyright
Law.

2. Absence of Spanish Common Law: Unlike English or American Common Law, Spanish
jurisprudence did not follow the principle of stare decisis (precedent), and lower courts were not
bound by the decisions of higher courts. The basis of law was primarily written law, local
customs, and general principles of law.

3. Use of Customs: When there was no specific applicable law, courts were guided by the customs
of the local area where the case arose.
 4. Spanish Statute Law: Spanish statute law was retained in the Philippines but was severed from
Spanish jurisprudence. Political laws were abrogated by the change in sovereignty, and any laws
or customs inconsistent with American principles were superseded.

5. American-Derived Statutes: The bulk of contemporary statute law in the Philippines is derived
from Anglo-American sources and was enacted by Congress. In cases under these statutes, the
court relied on Anglo-American cases for interpretation.

6. Development of a Philippine Common Law: Through the influence of American

7. Collateral Influences: The practical situation in the Philippines, including the use of Anglo-
American cases in court decisions, the lack of Spanish digests, and the presence of English and
American legal resources in libraries, all contributed to the development of a Philippine Common
Law.

8. Conclusions: The text concludes that the jurisprudence in the Philippines is primarily based on
the Anglo-American Common Law, with few exceptions where Spanish written law is applied or
where it conflicts with local customs and institutions. The court's interpretation of the New York
rule allows the applicant to be admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines.

In essence, the text highlights the complex legal landscape in the Philippines, the influence of different
legal systems, and the development of a Philippine Common Law primarily based on Anglo-American
principles.

In the case of in re Application of Max Shoop for Admission to Practice Law, the applicant, Max
Shoop, sought admission to practice law in the Philippines under the rules in effect at that time. The
relevant rules stated that applicants who had been admitted to practice law in the highest courts of
certain jurisdictions, including the highest court of a U.S. state, might be admitted without having to take
the usual bar examination, provided that comity existed between those jurisdictions.

The main issues addressed in this case were:

1. Comity with the New York Rule: The first issue revolved around whether New York State,
where Max Shoop was admitted to practice, had comity with the Philippine Islands that would
allow for admission without examination. The rule required comity, which means that New York
should grant the same privilege to attorneys from the Philippines, allowing them to practice law
in New York without an examination.

2. Philippine Islands as a Territory: The second issue concerned whether the Philippine Islands
could be considered a "territory of the United States" as mentioned in the New York rule. This
was crucial because the rule allowed for admission without examination if the applicant had
practiced for five years in the highest court of a state or territory.

3. Jurisprudence based on English Common Law: The third issue dealt with whether the
jurisprudence in the Philippines was based on the principles of English Common Law, as
mentioned in another part of the New York rule. This would allow for admission without
examination if the applicant had practiced in a jurisdiction where English Common Law principles
were followed.

The ruling and analysis provided in the text can be summarized as follows:
 1. The court determined that the Philippines was not an "organized territory" incorporated into the
United States and that it was not a "foreign country." It was described as a "territory of the
United States over which civil government could be established." The court cited legal opinions
and historical context to establish this status.

2. It was argued that under the New York rule, the word "territory" should be understood in a broad
sense and encompass all the territory of the United States, regardless of its political subdivision.

3. Regarding the jurisprudence based on English Common Law, the court acknowledged that the
legal system in the Philippines was not identical to the English Common Law system but had
been influenced by it, as well as by Spanish law and American legal principles. The court referred
to the influence of English and American jurisprudence on the jurisprudence in the Philippines.

In conclusion, the court ultimately found that comity existed between New York and the Philippines for
the purposes of the admission of attorneys without examination. They accepted that the term "territory"
in the New York rule included the Philippines. Additionally, they recognized the influence of English and
American jurisprudence in the legal system of the Philippines, allowing for applicants like Max Shoop to
be admitted without having to take the bar examination.

This text discusses the legal context in the Philippine Islands, particularly in relation to the sources and
application of laws following changes in sovereignty, particularly the transition from Spanish rule to
American rule. Here is a summary of the key points:

1. Sources of Law in the Philippines:

 The text discusses various laws in the Philippine Islands, including Las Siete Partidas, Las Leyes
de Toro, Leyes de las Indias, and others.

 It emphasizes that, following the change of sovereignty, Spanish laws were applied in the
Philippines and became statutory law. However, there was no true Common Law in the Spanish
sense, and the customs of the people played a role in the legal system.

2. Role of Custom and Stare Decisis:

 Spanish jurisprudence did not recognize the principle of stare decisis, meaning that there was no
precedent-based Common Law similar to English or American systems.

 Spanish courts had the authority to disregard decisions of higher courts, which is a general
continental rule. The local customs were the primary reference when written law was silent.

3. Differences Between Spanish and English Common Law:

 Spanish law relied on customs specific to the locality, while English Common Law evolved into a
case law system that created binding legal precedents.

 Under the Spanish system, when written law was silent, the court looked to local customs, while
English Common Law allowed for the development of binding legal precedents.

4. Spanish Statute Law and Changes After Sovereignty:

 Spanish statute law in the Philippines was separated from Spanish jurisprudence after the change
of sovereignty, becoming effective as if newly enacted by the U.S. Congress.
  Political laws were abrogated due to the change of sovereignty, and laws inconsistent with the
American principles and Constitution were superseded.

5. Development of a Philippine Common Law:

 The text discusses how American-derived statutes and the application of Anglo-American case
law have led to the development of a "Philippine Common Law."

 The Philippine Common Law supplements and amplifies the written law and is effective in various
areas of jurisprudence.

6. Influence of Anglo-American Law:

 The text emphasizes the extensive use of Anglo-American legal authorities and cases in the
Philippines' legal decisions, highlighting the dominance of Anglo-American case law.

7. Conclusion:

 The text concludes that the Philippine Islands function as an unorganized territory of the United
States with a civil government established by Congress.

 In interpreting and applying laws, the court in the Philippines primarily relies on Anglo-American
theories and precedents, subject to exceptions in cases where Spanish legal remnants or local
customs apply.

 A "Philippine Common Law" has developed, based on Anglo-American Common Law, which is
effective in legal matters that don't conflict with written law or local customs.

This summary captures the key points from the text, which primarily discusses the development and
influence of legal systems in the Philippines, especially regarding the transition from Spanish to American
rule.

The Philippine legal system has undergone significant changes and developments between 1920 and the
present day. Here are some key differences between Philippine law in 1920 and today:

1. Sovereignty and Legal Status:

 In 1920, the Philippines was under American colonial rule. It was an unincorporated
territory of the United States.

 Today, the Philippines is an independent sovereign nation. It gained independence from

2. Constitution:

 In 1920, the Philippines did not have its own constitution. Instead, it was governed by
various acts and laws enacted by the United States Congress.

 Today, the Philippines has its own constitution, known as the 1987 Constitution, which
serves as the supreme law of the land.

3. Legal Codes:

 In 1920, the legal system in the Philippines was heavily influenced by Spanish civil law,
and the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 was in effect.
  Today, the Philippines still has elements of civil law inherited from its Spanish colonial
past. However, it has developed its own legal codes, including the Revised Penal Code,
the Civil Code of the Philippines, and others.

4. Legal Education:

 In 1920, legal education was primarily based on Spanish traditions, and many Filipino
lawyers were trained under this system.

 Today, legal education in the Philippines is influenced by both American and Filipino legal
traditions, with law schools offering programs based on modern legal principles.

5. Judicial System:

 In 1920, the judicial system was influenced by American legal principles and practices,
but it was still evolving as the Philippines transitioned from Spanish colonial rule.

 Today, the Philippines has a well-established judiciary with a Supreme Court as its
highest legal authority.

6. Laws and Legislation:

 In 1920, the legal framework was based on laws enacted during the American colonial
period and the influence of Spanish law.

 Today, the legal framework has evolved significantly, with numerous laws, amendments,
and legal reforms passed by the Philippine Congress to address contemporary issues and
societal changes.

7. International Relations:

 In 1920, the Philippines was a U.S. colony and did not have independent foreign
relations.

 Today, the Philippines has a foreign policy independent of the United States and engages
in international relations with other countries.

8. Human Rights and Constitutional Protections:

 In 1920, the protection of human rights and civil liberties was still developing.

 Today, the 1987 Constitution contains an extensive Bill of Rights that guarantees
fundamental human rights and freedoms.

9. Economic Laws and Regulations:

 In 1920, the economic laws and regulations were influenced by American colonial
policies.

 Today, the Philippines has developed its economic laws, including laws on trade,
commerce, and taxation, to adapt to modern economic realities.

10. Environmental Laws:

 Environmental laws and regulations were not as comprehensive in 1920 as they are
today. The Philippines now has a range of environmental laws to address conservation
and sustainability.
These are just some of the key differences between Philippine law in 1920 and the legal system in place
in the Philippines today. The legal landscape has evolved considerably to reflect the nation's changing
status and needs.