Requisites for Recognition and Enforcement

1. There must be proof of the foreign judgment; for the recognition, there is no necessity for a separate action or proceeding

2. The judgment must be on a civil or commercial matter

3. There must be no lack of jurisdiction, no want of notice, no collusion, no fraud, no clear mistake of law or fact

Note:

a. Fraud here must be Extrinsic fraud – that is fraud based on facts not controverted or resolved in the case where the judgment was rendered

b. Regarding clear mistake of law or fact, the supreme court of the U.S. reversing the SC of the Phils., held that even if there is a clear mistake of law or fact, this alone will not prevent the recognition or enforcement of a foreign court (Hongkong) judgment which otherwise fulfils all the other requisites.

4. The judgment must not contravene a sound established policy of the forum.

Note:

a. An unfaithful mother, awarded by a US court custody of her child, was denied said custody by our Philippine courts

b. A litigant not satisfied with the decision of a Philippine court, resorted to a foreign court to obtain another remedy. Failing in this foreign venture, he now seeks the enforcement of the Philippine decision which he had formerly abandoned.

HELD: The litigants, whether they are citizens or foreigners, should respect the decisions of Philippine courts, but if they choose to resort to a foreign court, asking for a remedy that is incompatible with the execution of a decision obtained in the Philippines and obtained a decision that is adverse, they should not be permitted to repudiate the decision of the foreign court and to ask the enforcement of the decision of the Philippine court which they have abandoned. To permit them to litigate in that manner is contrary to the order and public interest of the Philippines because it disturbs the orderly administration of justice.

5. The judgment must be res judicata in the state that rendered it.

The requisites for res judicata are the following:

a. Judgment must be final

b. The court rendering the judgment must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties

c. The judgment must be on the merits

d. There must be identity of the parties, subject matter and cause of action – except that the recognition or enforcement of a foreign action is now the recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment on the original cause of action

Provisions of the Rules of Court on Foreign Judgments:

Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments. The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgments as follows:

a) In case a judgment against a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing

b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law

Whose judgment is really enforced?

It would seem that when our courts enforce a foreign judgment by allowing it, the effect is that it is really our own court’s judgment that we enforce.

NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES v. CA 241 SCRA 192

FACTS : Plaintiff Northwest Airlines and defendant C.F. Sharp & Co., through its Japan branch entered into an international passenger sales agency agreement, whereby it authorized the latter to sell its airline tickets. Defendant was unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales, hence plaintiff sued the defendant for the collection of the unremitted proceeds with a claim for damages in a Tokyo court.

A writ of summons were issued against defendant at its office in Yokohama but the bailiff failed twice to serve the writs. The Tokyo court decided to have the writs of summons served at defendant’s head office in Manila, in which the defendant accepted but failed to appear at the hearings. The Tokyo court decided in favor of the plaintiff. However the judgment remained unsatisfied.

Hence, petitioner filed a suit for the enforcement of judgment before RTC of Manila. Defendant filed its answer, and averred that the judgment of the Japanese court was void having been rendered without due and proper notice to them. The said case for enforcement was tried on the merits and defendant moved for demurrer of evidence on the ground that the foreign judgment sought to be enforced is void for want of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

ISSUE : Whether or not the foreign judgment can be recognized and enforced under Philippine courts.

HELD : Yes. 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 ang the giving of due notice therein.

Alternatively, in the light of the absence of proof regarding Japanese law, the processual presumption may be invoked. Apllying it, the Japanese law on the matter is presumed to be similar with the Philippine law on service of summons on a private corporation doing business in the Philippines. Sec. 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, the service may be made:

1) on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose;

2) absence thereof, on the government offcial designated by law to that

3) on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.

Accordingly, the extraterritorial service of summons on it by the Japanese court was valid not only under the processual presumption but also because of the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty.

BOUDARD v. TAIT 67 Phil 170

FACTS : Mr. Boudard, as widow of Maria Boudard and as guardian of their children obtained a favorable judgment from the CFI of Hanoi, French Indo-China, for the sum of 40,000 piastras against Tait who had been declared in default for his failure to appear at the trial. Said judgment was based on the fact that Mr.

Boudard, who was an employee of Tait, was killed in Hanoi by co-employees although outside the fulfillment of a duty. Boudard filed a petition with the CFI of Manila for the execution of the Hanoi judgment but the court dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Hanoi Court, Tait not being a resident of that country. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE : Whether or not the judgment of Hanoi Court is conclusive in our jurisdiction.

HELD : No. The exhibits presented by the appellant show that the summons alleged to have been adressed to the appellee, was delivered in Manila to J.M. Shotwell, a representative or agent of Churchwill & Tait Inc., which is an entity entirely different from the appellee. The rule in matters of this nature is that judicial proceedings in a foreign country, regarding payment of money, are only effective against a party if summons is duly served on him within such foreign country before the proceedings. The fundamental rule is that jurisdiction in personam over non-residents, so as to sustain a money judgment, must be based upon personal service within the state which renders the judgment.

RAMIREZ v. GMUR 42 Phil 855

FACTS : Samuel, a native of Switzerland and domiciliary of the Philippines for many years died in Iloilo, leaving a valuable estate which he disposed by will. He had one natural daughter Leona Castro. It was shown that in 1985, Castro married to Frederick Kauffman, a British subject. Three children were born of this marriage.

In 1904, Kauffman went to Pari, France pusposely for obtaining a divorce from Castro under French law. A divorce decree was then issued. Castro married Dr.

Earnest Mory in England. Two children were born of that marriage. In 1910, Castro died. Both sets of children claim that Leona Castro was the recognized natural daughter of Bischoff and she would have been his forced heir had she been alive at the time of her father’s death.

ISSUE : Whether or not the divorce decree obtained in France be recognized as valid in the courts of the Philippines

HELD : No. The decree of divorce upon which reliance is placed by the representation of the Mory children cannot be recognized as valid in the Philippines. The French tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an action for the dissolution of a marriage contracted in these Islands by persons domiciled here, such marriage being indissoluble under the laws then prevaling in this country. The claims of Mory children to participate in the estate of Samuel Bischoff must therefore be rejected. The right to inherit is limited to legitimate, legitimated and acknowledged natural children. The children of adulterous relations are wholly excluded.

BORTHWICK v. CASTRO 152 SCRA 229

FACTS : Petitioner William Borthwick, an American citizen living in the Philippines owned real property interests in Hawaii. Private respondent Joseph Scallon sued Borthwick on the promissory notes which the latter issued and became due.

Petitioner was declared in default by the Circuit Court of Hawaii due to his failure to appear and answer the complaint. However, private respondent failed to have the foreign judgment executed in Hawaii and California be enforced because petitioner had no assets in those States. The foreign judgment was sought to be enforced in the Philippines by filing before CFI of Makati, a complaint to enforce the same, on the ground that petitioner had real properties in Madaluyong City.

Petitioner was again declared in default and was ordered to pay Scallon the amount prayed for. The court issued an amendatory order and upon receipt, petitioner moved for new trial but the same was denied. Hence, this petition contending that the foreign judgment was unenforceable in the Phils.for bwing rendered without jurisdiction over his person.

ISSUE : Whether or not foreign judgment is enforceable in Philippine courts.

HELD : Yes, because both the Hawaii court and Philippine court accorded Borthwick the opportunity to answer the complaint and impugn the complaints against him which opoortunities he failed to do so, hence he was declared in default. It is true that the foreign judgment against the person is merely presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and rejection threof may be justified, among others by evidence of want of jurisdiction of the issuing authority under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Unfortunately, petitioner was not able to impugn the judgment against him. Thus, the verdict must go against him.

Absence fraud, collusion, a default judgment is as conclusive as adjudication between the parties as when rendered after answer and complete contest in open court.

QUERUBIN v. QUERUBIN 87 Phil 124

FACTS : Silvestre Querubin, a Filipino citizen, married petitioner Margaret Querubin in New Mexico, USA. They had a daughter named Querubina. Both spouses instituted a divorce proceedings against each other. The Superior Court of Los Angeles granted the divorce decree filed by Margaret and the same court awarded “joint custody“ of the child. Querubina was to be kept in a neutral home subject to reasonable visits by both parties. Both parents were restrained from taking Querubina out of California without the permission of the Court. Upon Margaret’s petition, an interlocutory decree was granted by the court awarding her the custody of Querubina. But Silvestre together with Querubina, left San Francisco and went to the Philippines and stayed in Caoayan, Ilocos Sur, with the intent of protecting the child from the effects of her mother’s scandalous conduct. Margaret filed a petition for habeas corpus before CFI for the custody of Querubina under the interlocutiry decree of California court, granting her the child’s custody must be complied within the Philippines.

ISSUE : Whether or not the interlocutory decree can be given effect within the Philippine courts.

HELD : No. The decree is by no means final. It is subject to change with the circumstancess. Because the decree is interlocutory, it cannot be implemented in the Philippines where the judgment is merely intelocutory, the determination of the question by the court which rendered it did not settle and adjudge finally the rights of the parties.

ST. AVIATION SERVICES CO. v. GRAND INT’L AIRWAYS INC GR 140288, October 23, 2006

FACTS : Petitioner is a foreign corporation based in Singapore, engaged in the manufacture, repair and maintenance of airplanes and aircrafts and respondent is a domestic corporation engaged in airline operations, executed an agreement whereby petitioner agreed to undertake maintenance and modification works on respondent’s aircraft. They further agreed that the validity of the agreement shall be governed by the laws of Singapore and that any suit arising therefrom shall be submitted to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. Petitioner undertook the contracted works and billed respondent of the expenses. However, the respondent failed to pay despite repeated demands by the petitioner, which is in violation of the terms agreed upon. Petitioner then filed with the High Court of Singapore an action for collection of sum of money. The court issued a writ of summons to be served extraterritorially upon respondent thru the assistance of the sheriff of Pasay City to effect said summons to respondent. However, despite receipt of summons, the respondent still failed to answer the claim. The High Court of Singapore rendered a judgment by default against respondent. For the said judgment remained unsatisfied, petitioner petitoned with the RTC of Pasay City for the enforcement of said foreign judgment. Respondent moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over its person, which was denied. On appeal, the CA granted the petition of the respondent. Hence, this instant petition before the SC contending that High Court of Singapore acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent and that the judgment of default rendered by the same is enforceable in the Phils.

ISSUES : (1) Whether or not Singapore Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent

(2) Whether or not foreign judgment by default is enforceable in the Phils.

HELD : (1) Yes. Generally, matters of remedy an procedure such as those relating to the service of process upon a defendant are governed by the lex fori, which is the law Singapore. The service of summons outside Singapore is in accordance with the Rules of Court of Singapore which provides that the originating process may be served:

a. thru the gov’t of that country, where the government is willing to effect service

b. thru a Singapore Consular authority in that country, except where service thru such authority is contrary to the law of the country or

c. by a method of service authorized by law of that country for service of any originating process issued by that country

In this case, the writ of summons issued by the Singapore Court was served upon respondent at its office at Pasay City and was received by Joyce Austria, Secretary of the General Manager of the respondent company. Considering, that the writ of summons was served upon respondent in accordance with our rules, the jurisdiction was acquired by Singapore High Court over its person.

(2) Yes. Generally, in the absence of a treaty or special contract, no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal, however under the rules of comity, utility and convenience, nations have established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered effective under certain conditions that may vary in different countries. The conditions for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in Philippine legal system is contained in Sec. 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides:

Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgment – The effect of a judgment of final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:

a. In case of judgment or final order upon a specific ting, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title of the thing

b. In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title.

In either case the judgment may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

The party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity.

ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS BERHAD v. CA GR 110263, July 20, 2001

FACTS : Petitioner, a Malaysian corporation filed a collection suit against private respondent, a domestic corporation before Malaysian Court in Kuala Lumpur.

Petitioner sought to recover the indemnity of the performance bond it had put up in favor of private respondent, to guarantee the completion of the Felda project.

The Malaysian Court decided in favor of the petitioner, but private respondent failed to pay the same. Petitioner instituted a complaint with the RTC of Pasay City to enforce the judgment of foreign court. Private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that said foreign judgment is unenforceable in the Philippines for want of jurisdiction over the person of private respondent.

The trial court dismissed petitioner’s complaint. Hence, this petition contending that Malaysian court acquired jurisdiction over the person or private respondent by its voluntary submission to the court’s authority thru its appointed counsel Mr.

Tee, and that said foreign judgment should be recognized and enforced in the Philippines.

ISSUES : (1) Whether or not Malaysian court acquired jurisdiction over the person of private

respondent

(2) Whether or not the CA erred in denying recognition and enforcement to said foreign

judgment

HELD : (1)Yes. The recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is not necessarily affected by the fact that the procedure in the courts of country in which such judgment was rendered differs from that country in which the judgment is relied on. Matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to service of summons or court process upon the defendant, is governed by lex fori, which is the law of Malaysia.

In the instant case, records show that upon filing of the case, Messrs. Allen &

Gledhill, Advocates and Solicitors with address in Kuala Lumpur, entered their conditional apperance for private respondent questioning the regularity of the writ of service of summons but subsequently withdrew the same when it realized that the writ was properly served and that the matter was represented by their counsel Mr. Tee. Supported also by documentary evidence shows that summons in chambers abs affidavit of Khaw Chay Tee, counsel for private respondent.

It was then incumbent upon private respondent to present evidence as to what Malaysian procedural law is and to show that under it, as alleged by it, is

It was then incumbent upon private respondent to present evidence as to what Malaysian procedural law is and to show that under it, as alleged by it, is