MIJARES ET AL. VS.

RANADA
FACTS:

 Petitioners are prominent victims of human rights violations during the Marcos era.
 On May 9, 1991, the petitioners filed a complaint to the United States District Court, Dstrict of Hawaii, against
the estate of former president Marcos (Marcos Estate).
 Invoking the Alien Tort Act, petitioners obtained a final judgment in their favor against the estate thereof
amounting to roughly $1.9B in compensatory and exemplary damages which was eventually affirmed by the
US court of Appeals.
 Alient Tort Act- involve a suit by aliens for tortious violations of international law.
 Petitioners filed a complaint with the Makati RTC for the enforcement of the final Judgement, paying P410.00
as docket and filing fee.
 Estate Marcos filed a Motion to dismiss alleging the non-payment of the correct filing fees.
 September 9, 1998, Respondent Judge Santiago Javier Ranada of the Makati RTC dismissed the petitioners’
complaint.
 Petitioners filed a Motion for reconsideration, then, was denied.
 Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the twin order of respondent judge.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the filing fees computed by the Makati RTC was correct considering the petitioners’ contention that
the subject matter in the action is the enforcement of a foreign judgment, and not an action for collection of a sum of
money or recovery of damages, and in contrary with the respondent’s contention that it involves a judgment of
rendered by a foreign court ordering the payment of definite sums of money, allowing for easy determination of the
value of the foreign judgment. On that score, Section 7(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Civil Procedure would find
application and the RTC estimated the proper amount of the filing fees was approximately P472 million which
obviously not paid.

RTCs Basis of computation: Sec.7 (a) of Rule 47.

Sec. 7. Clerk of Regional Trial Court.-

(a) For filing an action or a permissive counterclaim or money claim against an estate not based on judgment, or
for filing with leave of court a third-party, fourth-party, etc., complaint, or a complaint in intervention, and for
all clerical services in the same time, if the total sum claimed, exclusive interest, or the started value of the
property in litigation is:

Less than 100k 500 pesos

100k or more-less than 150k 800 pesos
150k or more-less than 200k 1k
200k or more-less than 250k 1,500k
250k or more-less than 300k 1,750k
300k or more-not more than 400k 2k
350k or more-not more than 400k 2,250k
For each 1k in excess of 400k 10 pesos

Petitioners’ Basis of computation: Sec.7 (b) of Rule 47.

(b) For filing

1. Actions where the value of the subject matter cannot be estimated --- P600 (invoked by the petitioners)
2. Special Civil Actions except judicial foreclosure which shall be governed by paragraph (a) above --- P600
3. All other actions not involving property --- P600
*It is worth noting that the provision also provides that in real actions, the assessed value or estimated value of the
property shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees. Yet again, this provision does
not apply in the instant case. A real action is one where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property or an action
affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property. Neither the complaint nor the award of damages by the
US District Court involves any real property of the Marcos Estate.

RULING:

No, the filing fees computed by the Makati RTC is incorrect, and that the amount paid by the petitioners as filing fee
is proper, but on a different basis – amount merely corresponds to the same amount required for “other actions not
involving property.”

In the case at hand, RTC Makati erred in concluding that the filing fee should be computed on the basis of the total
sum claimed or the stated value of property in litigation. Given the circumstance, given that the complaint is lodge
against an estate and is based on the US District Court’s final judgment, this foreign judgment may, for the purpose
of classification under the governing procedural rule, be deemed as subsumed under section 7 (b)(3) of Rule 141. Thus,
only the blanket filing fee or minimal amount is required.

Note: Petitioners also erred in stating that the foreign final judgment is incapable of pecuniary estimation because it
is so capable. On this point, petitioners state that this might lead to an instant wherein a first level court would have
jurisdiction to enforce a foreign judgment. Under B.P 129, such court are not vested with such jurisdiction. Section 33
of B.P 129 refers to instances wherein the cause of action or subject matter pertains to an assertion of rights over
property or a sum if money. But in the present case, the subject matter is the foreign judgment itself. Thus, Section 16
thereof reveals that the complaint for enforcement of judgment even if capable of pecuniary estimations would fall
under the jurisdiction of the RTCs.

A simple note as regards to the Enforcement of Foreign Judgment:

“There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or convention that requires the Philippines to recognize foreign
judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement thereof. However, generally accepted principles of international
law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive
from treaty obligations… The fact that there is no binding universal treaty governing the practice is not indicative of a
widespread rejection of the principle, but only a disagreement as to the imposable specific rules governing procedure
for recognition and enforcement.”

“The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted as binding result from the
combination of two elements: (a) the established, widespread, and consistent practice of the state, and (b)
psychological element known as the opinion JURIS SIVE NECESSITATES (Opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the
latter element is a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law
requiring it.”