The term "conflict of laws" itself can be misleading. It suggests that a "conflict" or antagonism between the laws of the Philippines and those of a foreign country is a prerequisite for the application of this field of law and its underlying principles. However, this is not necessarily the case. In reality, the focus of conflict of laws, or private international law, is not on finding or resolving conflicts between legal systems. Instead, it centers on the anterior question of determining which law, whether domestic or foreign, should govern a particular legal issue or transaction that involves a foreign element.

The potential for confusion arises from the term's emphasis on "conflict," which implies a clash or incompatibility between legal rules. This is inaccurate because the laws of the Philippines and a foreign country may be identical or substantially similar in their content. For instance, the Philippine laws on legitime, which define a person's compulsory share in the estate of a deceased individual, might be very similar, or even the same, as the succession laws of China. In such a scenario, there is no actual "conflict" between the laws; both legal systems provide for a similar framework. Nevertheless, a conflict-of-laws analysis is still necessary to ascertain whether Philippine law or Chinese law should apply to a particular succession issue.

The core concern of this legal discipline is not to identify incompatibilities or differences between the laws of various countries. While such differences may exist, they are not a prerequisite for the application of conflict-of-laws rules. The student of this field, and the judge applying its principles, is not primarily concerned with finding mismatches, opposition, or divergences between the laws of the Philippines and those of other countries. These differences, or the lack thereof, do not dictate the outcome. Ultimately, only one system of law—either domestic or foreign—will be deemed applicable to resolve the legal issue at hand. The task is to determine which one.

To illustrate this point, under Philippine laws, consider a scenario involving a contract. Suppose a Filipino corporation enters into a contract with a corporation incorporated in Singapore. The contract is to be performed in Malaysia. If a dispute arises regarding the validity of the contract, a Philippine court will need to determine which law governs that issue: Philippine law, Singaporean law, or Malaysian law. This determination must be made even if the laws of these three countries are substantially similar with respect to the rules on contract validity. The court is not looking for a conflict; it is seeking the appropriate legal system to apply based on the principles and rules of private international law.

Similarly, consider the issue of determining the personal status of an individual. Article 15 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines embodies the nationality principle, which generally dictates that Philippine laws concerning the status, condition or legal capacity apply to Filipino citizens even if they are residing abroad. If a Filipino citizen enters into a contract of marriage in Las Vegas and a question arises in a Philippine court regarding the validity of that marriage, the court will apply Philippine law to determine the intrinsic or essential requisites of marriage, even if the relevant Nevada law is very similar to Philippine law. The court's decision to apply Philippine law is not based on a conflict between the two legal systems, but on the application of the nationality principle, a core concept in Philippine private international law.