295 SCRA 469 Conflict of Laws Private International Law Service of Summons to a Non

Resident Processual Presumption

Asiavest Limited vs. CA and Heras
Facts: In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio Heras to pay US$1.8 million or its
equivalent, with interest, to Asiavest Ltd. Apparently, Heras guaranteed a certain loan in Hong
Kong and the debtor in said loan defaulted hence, the creditor, Asiavest, ran after Heras. But
before said judgment was issued and even during trial, Heras already left for good Hong Kong
and he returned to the Philippines. So when in 1987, when Asiavest filed a complaint in court
seeking to enforce the foreign judgment against Heras, the latter claim that he never received any
summons, not in Hong Kong and not in the Philippines. He also claimed that he never received a
copy of the foreign judgment. Asiavest however contends that Heras was actually given service
of summons when a messenger from the Sycip Salazar Law Firm served said summons by
leaving a copy to one Dionisio Lopez who was Heras son in law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment can be enforced against Heras in the Philippines.
HELD: No. Although the foreign judgment was duly authenticated (Asiavest was able to adduce
evidence in support thereto) and Heras was never able to overcome the validity of it, it cannot be
enforced against Heras here in the Philippines because Heras was not properly served summons.
Hence, as far as Philippine law is concerned, the Hong Kong court has never acquired
jurisdiction over Heras. This means then that Philippine courts cannot act to enforce the said
foreign judgment.
The action against Heras is an action in personam and as far as Hong Kong is concerned, Heras
is a non resident. He is a non resident because prior to the judgment, he already abandoned Hong
Kong. The Hong Kong law on service of summons in in personam cases against non residents
was never presented in court hence processual presumption is applied where it is now presumed
that Hong Kong law in as far as this case is concerned is the same as Philippine laws. And under
our laws, in an action in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident who does not
voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court, personal service of summons within the
state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This method of service is
possible if such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is not found therein, the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and
decide the case against him. Without a personal service of summons, the Hong Kong court
never acquired jurisdiction. Needless to say, the summons tendered to Lopez was an invalid
service because the same does not satisfy the requirement of personal service.