GROUP MEMBERS:

CRESCINI, Cleyvan
LUMBRE, Anne
MARINAY, Abegail
MOLINA, Ma. Emiliana

RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT: (REFERENCE: AGPALO PAGES 574-647)

1. GENERAL
a. Requisites for a valid judgment

(a) the state in which it is rendered has jurisdiction to act judicially in the case; and
(b) a reasonable method of notification is employed and a reasonable opportunity to be heard is
afforded to persons affect; and
(c) the judgment is rendered by a competent court; and
(d) there is compliance with such requirements of the state of rendition as necessary for the valid
exercise of power by the court.

2. REASONS FOR RECOGNITION

 Comity
 Reciprocity
 Creation of an obligation and entitlement to a vested right
 Doctrine of Res Judicata

3. THEORIES ON RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT

a. cause of action and the judgment are merged and accordingly a person may sue for its
enforcement without re-litigating the case in the domestic court of the country where he seeks
enforcement of the judgment.
b. the other is the opposite, that is, that the cause of action upon which the foreign judgment is
founded is not merged, and consequently he has to re-litigate the whole case all over again in the
domestic court.

4. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT DISTINGUISHED.

RECOGNITION ENFORCEMENT

This does not necessarily include enforcement, It includes recognition.

where no affirmative relief is claimed

Recognition is a passive effect of foreign Enforcement is an active recognition and implementation

judgment, as it is raised as a defense to defeat
another action filed in another country, re-
litigating the same action based on substantially
the same facts and involving identical or
substantially identical parties, with
substantially similar interests, under the
principle of res judicata.
of the foreign judgment because it seeks the rendition of
another judgment from the local court, rendering the
foreign judgment as a domestic judgment and seeking its
enforcement by the sheriff in accordance with the Rules
of Court.

1|Page
5. EFFECTS OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT, GENERALLY [SEC. 48 OF RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT]

Section 48 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court reads:

“Section 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders.

— The effect of a judgment or 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 a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final
order is conclusive upon the title to the thing; and
(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 or final order 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.”

1. Judgment upon a specific thing — In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment
or final order is conclusive upon the thing. The action filed is a real action and the judgment therein is a
judgment in rem. In a judgment in rem, publication of notice is sufficient.
2. Judgment against person. — 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. The action is a personal action, in which the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal
property, the enforcement of a contract or the recovery of damages. The judgment refers to a judgment
in personam based on personal liability.

6. REQUIREMENTS FOR GIVING EFFECT TO FOREIGN JUDGMENT.

(i) judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country;
- A final judgment is one which finally disposes of, adjudicates, or determines the rights
of the parties in the case.
(ii) having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order; and
- Jurisdiction is refers to two things: jurisdiction over the subject matter and
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. To be accorded recognition, the foreign
court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and of the person of the
defendant.
(iii) the judgment must not be against the local law, good morals or public policy.
- A foreign judgment which is against our laws or good morals cannot be recognized
nor given effect in our country.

7. GROUNDS TO REPEL FOREIGN JUDGMENT, GENERALLY.

Foreign judgments may be recognized and enforced in the Philippines, except for want of jurisdiction,
want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact, or when it is contrary to
Philippine laws, customs, and public policy.

a. Where foreign judgment is vitiated by want of jurisdiction.

- If the action filed in a foreign country did not implead other indispensable parties, such that
the foreign court did not acquire jurisdiction over them, the judgment is invalid because there
will be no final determination of the case that can be made if the indispensable parties are not
impleaded.
b. Where there is want of notice to the party.
- Want of notice to the party or violation of his right to procedural due process will render the
judgment null and void.
2|Page
 - As applied to judicial proceedings, the requirements of due process are satisfied if the
following conditions are present:
(1) there must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the
matter before it;
(2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the
property which is the subject of the proceedings;
(3) the defendant must be given opportunity to be heard; and
(4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.

c. Where foreign judgment is vitiated by fraud.

- Where the foreign judgment has been obtained by fraud, the judgment is null and void for
violation of the defendant's right to due process. The fraud which is a ground for the
annulment of judgment is extrinsic fraud.

- Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is
committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party has been prevented
from exhibiting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his
opponent, such as keeping him away from the court, a false promise of a compromise, being
kept ignorant of the case; or where his attorney fraudulently connives with the other party at
his defeat.

d. Where there is collusion.

- Collusion may refer to mutual fraud by both parties, to secure a judgment they mutually
desire either for or against one party. In such instance, there is violation of the right to due
process of the party who lost the case.
- Collusion is a ground for denial of the action.

e. Where foreign judgment is clear mistake of law or fact.

- There is mistake of law when the judge, having full knowledge of the facts, comes to an
erroneous conclusion as to their legal effect. It is a mistaken opinion or inference, arising from
an imperfect or incorrect exercise of judgment, upon the facts.
- A mistake of fact refers to mistaken judgment or incorrect belief as to the existence or effect
of matters offset; or to the misapplication or misapprehension of the facts. The court commits
mistake of fact when it overlooked, ignored or misinterpreted certain facts which, if
considered, would alter the result of the case.
- This provision authorizes the Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals, and ultimately the
Supreme Court to review the foreign judgment.

8. FOREIGN JUDGMENT TO CONFORM WITH CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

Section 14, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution requires that:

“Section 14. "No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based." The decision which falls
within the terms of the constitutional provision is the judgment rendered after the
previous presentation of the proof in an ordinary civil or criminal case, or upon a
stipulation of facts on which the determination of the case depends.”

It is not necessary that it should write every piece of evidence of both parties, nor should it specify the
statement of facts which a party considered proved. As long as the decision contains the necessary facts
to warrant its conclusions, the constitutional requirement is complied with.

3|Page
CASE DISCUSSION:
1. FUJIKI V. MARINAY, G.R. NO. 196049, JUNE 26, 2013

DOCTRINE:
Recognition of foreign judgment declaring nullity of marriage – A recognition of a foreign judgment is not an
action to nullify a marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to recognize the effectivity of a foreign judgment,
which presupposes a case which was already tried and decided under foreign law.

Facts:
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay in
the Philippines in 2004. The marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring
his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with each other.

In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage
being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married in 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought
Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and
started to contact Fujiki.

Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki
helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the marriage between
Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: “Judicial
Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage.”

RTC: dismissed the petition for "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment” based on improper venue
and the lack of personality of petitioner based the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages
and Annulment of Voidable Marriages

Issue:
Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages
is applicable.

Whether the foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a
foreign country is enforceable in the domestic courts

Ruling:
No. Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating
to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country. To hold that A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC applies to a petition for recognition of foreign judgment mean that the trial court and the parties
should follow its provisions, including the form and contents of the petition,the service of summons,the
investigation of the public prosecutor,the setting of pre-trial,the trialand the judgment of the trial court. This
is absurd because it will litigate the case anew. It will defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments,
which is "to limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues."

For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one
of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to prove the foreign judgment as a
fact under the Rules of Court. To be more specific, a copy of the foreign judgment may be admitted in evidence
and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of
Court.Petitioner may prove the Japanese Family Court judgment through (1) an official publication or (2) a
certification or copy attested by the officer who has custody of the judgment. If the office which has custody
is in a foreign country such as Japan, the certification may be made by the proper diplomatic or consular
officer of the Philippine foreign service in Japan and authenticated by the seal of office.

4|Page
2. ROEHR V. RODRIGUEZ, G.R. NO. 142820, JUNE 20, 2003
DOCTRINE:
As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction,
but the legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the children, must be determined by our courts.
The Court held that before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, such as the award
of custody to petitioner by the German court, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had
been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules of Court.

Since the divorce proceedings in the German court were summary, the wife was not given opportunity to
challenge said judgment. Therefore, the divorce decree did not provide for the finality of the custody of children.

Facts:
Wife Rodriguez filed for declaration of nullity of marriage, which was subsequently moved for
dismissal by husband Roehr, a German national. Pending decision, the husband obtained a decree of divorce
from a German Court, providing for (1) the dissolution of their marriage and (2) the grant of parental custody
of the children to Roehr.
Thereafter, wife moved for partial reconsideration with a prayer that the case proceed for the
purpose of determining the issues of custody of children and the distribution of the properties between the
Roehr and Rodriguez. Motion was granted and thus challenged by Roehr.

Issue:
Whether there is nothing left to be tackled by the Court since there are no conjugal properties alleged
in the annulment and the divorce decree provides for the finality of the custody of children.

Ruling:
No. As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in
our jurisdiction, but the legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the children, must be
determined by our courts. The Court held that before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign
judgment, such as the award of custody to petitioner by the German court, it must be shown that the parties
opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39,
Section 50 of the Rules of Court.
Pursuant to Article 26 of the Family Code, where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner
is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him
or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by
Executive Order 227)
Moreover, Section 50 of the Rules of Court states that the effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign
country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment upon 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 or fact.
Since the proceedings in the German court were summary, the wife was not given opportunity to
challenge said judgment. Therefore, the divorce decree did not provide for the finality of the custody of
children.

5|Page
3. ST. AVIATION SERVICES V. GRAND INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS, G.R. NO. 140288, OCTOBER 23, 2006.

DOCTRINE:
Final judgments of foreign courts are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious subject to certain
conditions that vary in different countries

Facts:
St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd., petitioner, is a foreign corporation based in Singapore executed an
Agreement for the Maintenance and Modification with Grand International Airways, Inc., respondent, is a
domestic corporation engaged in airline operations. Due to respondent’s failure to pay after demand,
petitioner filed with the High Court of the Republic of Singapore an action for sum of money. Upon petitioners
motion, the court issued a Writ of Summons to be served extraterritorially or outside Singapore upon
respondent with the assistance of the sheriff of Pasay City to effect service of the summons. However, despite
receipt of summons, respondent failed to answer the claim hence, it was declared default. petitioner filed
with the RTC Petition for Enforcement of Judgment. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on two
grounds: (1) the Singapore High Court did not acquire jurisdiction over its person; and (2) the foreign
judgment sought to be enforced is void for having been rendered in violation of its right to due process.

Issue:
Whether the Singapore High Court did not acquire jurisdiction over its person
Whether the foreign judgment is enforceable.

Ruling:

Yes, the Singapore High Court acquire jurisdiction over its person.
General Rule : Matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the service of process upon a
defendant are governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum,[4] which in this case is the law of
Singapore.
Under the ROC of Singapore, service maybe effected extrajudicially by a method of service authorized
by the law of the (foreign country) Philippines. In the Philippines, jurisdiction over a party is acquired by
service of summons by the sheriff.

Yes, the foreign judgment is enforceable.

General Rule: No sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a
tribunal of another country
Exemption: Under the rules of comity, utility and convenience, final judgments of foreign courts of
competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may
vary in different countries.
The Philippine legal system has long ago accepted into its jurisprudence and procedural rules the
viability of an action for enforcement of foreign judgment, as well as the requisites for such valid enforcement.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a foreign judgment or order against a person is merely
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties. It may be repelled, among others, by want of
jurisdiction of the issuing authority or by want of notice to the party against whom it is enforced. The party
attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity. Considering that
the Writ of Summons was served upon respondent in accordance with our Rules, jurisdiction was acquired
by the Singapore High Court over its person. Clearly, the judgment of default rendered by that court against
respondent is valid.

6|Page
4. PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS V. FASGI ENTERPRISES, G.R. NO. 137378, OCTOBER 12, 2000

DOCTRINE:
Conflict of Laws; Judgments; Enforcement of Foreign Judgments; Comity; The rules of comity, utility and
convenience of nations have established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign
courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious.

There is a principle of international comity that a court of another jurisdiction should refrain, as a matter of
propriety and fairness, from so assuming the power of passing judgment on the correctness of the application of
law and the evaluation of the facts of the judgment issued by another tribunal.
Facts:
FASGI entered into a distributorship arrangement with PAWI, herein petitioner and FPS, an Italian
corporation. Pursuant to the contract, PAWI shipped 8,594 wheels with an FOB value of 216,444.30 dollars.
Unfortunately, FASGI found out that the shipment were defective and non-compliant with the requirements.
FASGI then sued PAWI for breached of contract and recovery of damages before the US District Court in
California. However, the parties entered into a settlement while the case was pending. The parties agreed
that the wheels be returned after restoring the purchase price to FASGI; but then, PAWI failed to comply
allegedly due to Central Bank’s inquiries and restrictions.
The parties then resolved to enter into another arrangement through a Supplemental Settlement
Arrangement, part of which expressly permitted FASGI to enter Stipulation for Judgment in the event of
PAWI’s non-compliance. However, PAWI still failed to comply with its obligation. Irked by PAWI’s persistent
default, FASGI file an action and moved for entry of judgment. A certificate of finality of judgment was issued
by US District Court in California but FASGI was unable to obtain satisfaction of the final judgment in the US.
Thus, FASGI filed a complaint for enforcement of foreign judgment in RTC Makati. However, the trial court
dismissed the case on the ground that the decree was tainted with collusion, fraud, and clear mistake of law
and fact. The trial court also ruled that foreign judgment also ignored the reciprocal obligations of the parties.
Moreover, the trial held that the arrangements were entered into by the PAWI’s counsel without the latter’s
authorization and therefore, a nullity. FASGI elevated the matter to the CA which reversed the decision of the
trial court, ordering the full enforcement of the California judgment. Hence, the appeal.
Issue: whether or not the foreign judgment obtained by FASGI in the US may be given effect here in the
Philippines
Ruling:
The Court held that the no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered
by a tribunal of another country in the absence of a special compact. Nonetheless, final judgments of foreign
courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious through the rules of
comity, utility and convenience of nations. In the Philippines, a valid foreign judgment may be recognized as
long as certain conditions are met and a foreign judgment is presumed valid and binding in the country from
which it comes, until a contrary showing.
In the case at bar, the Court did not accept the contention of PAWI that its counsel was without authority
since PAWI could have forthwith signified to FASGI a disclaimer of settlement but it did not. The Court also
held that PAWI should not, after enjoying the benefits of the agreement such as be spared from substantial
amounts of damages and incurring heavy litigation expenses in a full-blown trial, be allowed to later disown
the arrangement terms thereof. Finding that there was no reversible error, the Court affirmed the decision
of the CA.

7|Page
5. PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORP., V. COURT OF APPEALS, 274 SCRA 102
DOCTRINE:
A foreign judgment is valid and enforceable in the Philippines if there is no showing that it was vitiated by want
of notice to the party, collusion, fraud or clear mistake of law or fact.
Facts:
Private Respondent Ducat obtained separate loans from Ayala and Philsec, secured by his share of stocks.
Daic, 1488, Inc.’s president, assumed Ducat’s obligation to facilitate the payments of loans by executing a
Warranty Deed with Vendor’s lien by which it sold to Athona Holdings a parcel of land in Texas, USA, while
Ayala and Philsec extended a loan to Athona as initial payment of the purchase price. The balance was to be
paid by means of a promissory note executed by Athona in favor of 1488, Inc. Later on, Ayala and Philsec
released Ducat from his indebtedness and delivered to 1488, Inc. all the shares of Ducat upon the receipt of
the money from 1488, Inc.
The entire amount covered by the note became due and demandable after Athona failed to pay the
interest on the balance. 1488, Inc. filed an action in the US against Athona, Ayala and Philsec for payment of
the balance and damages for breach of contract and for fraud. While the case was pending in the US, the
petitioners filed a complaint for sum of money with damages and preliminary attachment against the private
respondents in RTC Makati, reiterating their respective counterclaims in the case in the US. Ducat moved for
the dismissal of the case, which was granted by the trial on the ground of litis pendentia, forum non
conveniens, and failure of petitioners to state cause of action. When the matter was elevated to the CA, said
court affirmed the trial court’s grant of dismissal.
Issue: Whether or not the civil case in the RTC Makati is barred by the US court’s judgment
Ruling:
The Court held that while res judicata is given effect to foreign judgment, it was after the opposing parties
were given ample opportunity to repel them on grounds allowed under the law. This is because in Philippine
jurisdiction, with respect actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment
merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claom of a part and as such, is subject to proof
to the contrary.
In the case at hand, it can be said that the petitioners were given opportunity to challenge the judgment
of the US court as basis for declaring it res judicata or conclusive of the rights of private respondents. The
proceedings in the trial court were summary. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court was even
furnished copies of the pleadings in the US court of the pleadings in the US or apprised of the evidence
presented thereat, to assure a proper determination of whether the issues then being litigated in the US court
were exactly the issues raised in the case such that the judgment might rendered would constitute res
judicata. Furthermore, nor is the trial court’s refusal to take cognizance of the case justifiable under the
principle of forum non conveniens. The propriety of dismissing a case base on such principle requires a
factual determination, thus, it more properly considered a matter of defense.

8|Page
6. YAO V. COURT OF APPEALS, 344 SCRA 2002 (2000)
DOCTRINE:
The memorandum decision, to be valid, cannot incorporate the findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the
lower court only by remote reference which is to say that the challenged decision is not easily and immediately
available to the person reading the memorandum decision. For the incorporation by reference to be allowed, it
must provide for direct access to the facts and the law being adopted, which must be contained in a statement
attached to the said decision.
A decision or resolution, especially one resolving an appeal, should directly meet the issues for resolution;
otherwise, the appeal would be pointless—while brevity in the writing of decisions is an admirable trait, it should
not and cannot be substituted for substance.
If an appellate court fails to provide the appeal the attention it rightfully deserves, said court deprives the
appellant of due process since he is not accorded a fair opportunity to be heard by a fair and responsible
magistrate.
Facts:
After noticing the proliferation locally of GE lamp starters, PEMCO applied for issuance of a search warrant
which granted by MeTC Caloocan. By virtue of the seach warrant, boxes containing starters were seized from
a warehouse in Caloocan City. Yao was then charged for selling fake GE fluorescent lamp starters and was
later convicted by the MeTC. Yao filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Yao appealed to RTC
Caloocan. However, the said court affirmed in toto the decision of the MeTC. He move for reconsideration but
the same was denied. The RTC held that the motion for reconsideration was devoid of merit, reiterating that
the findings of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed on appeal
unless there are strong and cogent reasons.
Yao elevated the matter to the CA but unfortunately declared that the RTC’s decision has long become final
and executor, remanding the records of the case to the trial court for proper execution of judgment. Yao filed
an urgent motion to set aside entry of judgment, contending that the resolution did not specifically dismiss
the appeal but the Court of Appeals denied the same for lack of merit
Issue: Whether or not Yao was denied due process
Ruling:
The Court found that the RTC’s decision failed to meet the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution and therefore, fell short of the constitutional injunction. The RTC’s decision achieved nothing
and attempted at nothing, not even a simple summation of facts which could easily be done. The Court could
not consider or affirm said decision as memorandum decision since it failed to comply with measures of
validity. It merely affirmed in toto the decision of the MeTC without saying more. A decision or resolution,
especially one resolving an appeal, should directly meet the issues for resolution. Otherwise, the appeal
would be pointless.
It was held that faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, Article VII of the Constitution is
indisputably a paramount component of due process and fair play. It is likewise demanded by the due process
clause of the Constitution. The parties to litigation should be informed of how it was decided, with
explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. The losing party is entitled
to know why he lost, so he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision
should be reversed.

9|Page