OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT

• BASIS OF RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT – THE POLICY OF PRECLUSION

• PHILIPPINE CONFLICTS RULE ON RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT
WHAT ARE THE BASIS?

• BASED ON COMITY
• BASED ON A VESTED RIGHTS THEORY
• BASED ON A MODERN DOCTRINE OF OBLIGATION
BASED ON COMITY
• Comity derives from the latin comitas, courtesy, from cemis, friendly, courteous.
• Comity involves the question of reciprocity, and reciprocity could easily lead to
retaliation, where one of the two states does not recognize the judgments of other states
• If a court is compelled by comity to enforce judgment of foreign judgments, it would have
to ignore certain basic requisites for their recognition, such as an impartial court where
defendant is afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard.
IN THE CASE OF PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC. VS. FASGI
ENTERPRISES, INC.
• Generally, in the absence of a special compact, no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a
judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country; however, 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 under certain conditions that may
vary in different countries. In this jurisdiction, a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be
recognized insofar as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is
convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of competent
jurisdiction; that trial upon regular proceedings has been conducted, following due citation or voluntary
appearance of the defendant and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration
of justice; and that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and in the system of laws under which
it is sitting or fraud in procuring the judgment. A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the
country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis of a presumption of regularity of
proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum.
BASED ON VESTED RIGHTS THEORY
• Some authorities invoke the vested rights theory as the proper basis of recognition
• We cannot presuppose a right as vested by a foreign judgment and therefore entitled a
protection when a problem is precisely whether a right has been vested.
BASED IN A MODERN DOCTRINE OF
OBLIGATION
• Another school holds that the basis is found in the modern doctrine of obligation, namely, that
where a foreign court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated a certain sum to be due from
one person to another, the liability to pay that sum becomes a legal obligation which may be
enforced in the forum by action.
• Prof. Reese (reporter of the second restatement) believes that the rationale must be found in
the doctrine of res judicata.
• As stated by u.S. Supreme court “public policy dictates that there be an end of litigation; that
those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result of the contest, and that
matters once trid shall be considered forever settled as between the parties.
IN THE CASE OF PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORPORATION VS. COURT
OF APPEALS
• In the case of general corporation of the Philippines V. Union insurance society of canton, ltd., Which
private Respondents invoke for claiming conclusive effect for the foreign Judgment in their favor, the
foreign judgment was considered res Judicata because this court found “from the evidence as well as
From appellant’s own pleadings” that the foreign court did not Make a “clear mistake of law or fact” or
that its judgment was Void for want of jurisdiction or because of fraud or collusion by the Defendants.
Trial had been previously held in the lower court and only afterward was a decision rendered, declaring
the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington to have the effect of res judicata in the
case before the lower court. In the same vein, in Philippine International Shipping Corp. v. Court of
Appeals, this Court held that the foreign judgment was valid and enforceable in the Philippines there
being no showing that it was vitiated by want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud or clear mistake of
law or fact. The prima facie presumption under the Rule had not been rebutted.
• On the basis of decided cases in the Philippines, and in light of the pertinent provisions
of the rules of court, a valid judgment rendered in a foreign jurisdiction will be recognized
in the Philippines so far as:
• The immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned, provided our
courts are convinced that “there has been opportunity for a full and fair trial abroad
before a court of competent jurisdiction, conducting the trial upon regular proceedings,
after due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant, and under a system of
jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice and there is nothing to
show either prejudice in the court or in the system of laws under which it is sitting or
fraud in procuring the judgment.
• If the enforcement of the foreign judgment is sought in the Philippines, Philippine law will
determine the method of enforcement.
• For Example:
• If a money judgment is obtained by J.Smith against J dela Cruz from New York Court,
Smith cannot directly enforce such judgment by asking the Sheriff of Manila to seize de
la Cruz bank deposit in a Manila Bank.
• A separate action or proceeding must be instituted in the Manila Court by J. Smith
against J. dela Cruz, beased on the judgment he has obtained in New York.
• On the other hand, if as a result of the suit filed in New York by J. Smith, rendered
judgment in favor of J. dela Cruz, on the ground that the latter had already paid Smith, in
a subsequent suit on the same cause of action by Smith in a Philippine Court, J. dela
Cruz only need to do is to plead and prove the New York judgment in his favor.
IN THE CASE OF ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD VS.
COURT OF APPEALS
• The foregoing reasons or grounds relied upon by private respondent in preventing
enforcement and recognition of the Malaysian judgment primarily refer to matters of remedy
and procedure taken by the Malaysian High Court relative to the suit for collection initiated by
petitioner. Needless to stress, the recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is not
necessarily affected by the fact that the procedure in the courts of the country in which such
judgment was rendered differs from that of the courts of the country in which the judgment is
relied on. Ultimately, matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the service
of summons or court process upon the defendant, the authority of counsel to appear and
represent a defendant and the formal requirements in a decision are governed by the lex fori
or the internal law of the forum, i.e., the law of Malaysia in this case.
IN THE CASE OF MIJARES VS. RANADA

• It is clear then that it is usually necessary for an action to be filed in order to enforce a
foreign judgment, even if such judgment has conclusive effect as in the case of in rem
actions, if only for the purpose of allowing the losing party an opportunity to challenge
the foreign judgment, and in order for the court to properly determine its efficacy.
Consequently, the party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the
presumption of its validity.