TORTS 2.

Tort and a crime

DEFINITION Ex: Murder, rape

Refers to any act or ommission which causes damage to another. TN: Two separate actions are available here:

An action for tort is for recovery of damages a) Separate civil action for damages

TN: The operative act is damage, meaning it should cause damage to b) Criminal action
be considered a tort.
TORT VS CRIME
May be in the form of:
TORT CRIME
1. Restitution
Any wrongful act causing An act or omission defined by
2. Reparation of the damage caused damage to another. law as a crime.

3. Indemnification for consequential damages Party seeks compensation for Complainant seeks punishment,
the damage caused. not compensation.
Not only the actual damages, but also consequential
damages Results in damage which is
sought to be compensated by
Elements way of restitution,
1. Any wrongful act indemnification or reparation.

2. Causing damage to another Wrongful acts that violate Wrongful acts that violate
private interest. authority of the State.
Concept in the Philippines
Important: Do not be misled.
1. American Concept The State can also be a victim
of a tort if it results in damage.
Negligent acts AND intentional acts amounting to a crime.
Transitory may be filed Can only be prosecuted in that
Relevant provisions wherever the injured party may State alone.
be found; may be filed
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to LAW, wilfully and anywhere
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same.
Important: The action does not depend on whether the complainant
Atty.T: Art. 21 refers to acts that are contrary to law which is is the government or a private individual. As long as the action is to
wilfully or negligently done. seek compensation or reparation of the damage caused, that is Tort.

Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to The difference lies in the fact that there is no civil liability involved in
another in a manner that is contrary to MORALS, GOOD crimes because in tort, there is always damage involved.
CUSTOMS OR PUBLIC POLICY shall compensate the latter for
the damage. CRIME AND TORT

Atty. T: The act must be wilfull and it is contrary to morals, Example: Murder
good customs or public policy
There is a crime punishing it. At the same time, it also falls under
2. Spanish concept
article 20, viz: It is an act contrary to law, wilfully committed by
another.
Only involves fault or negligent acts excluding intentional acts.
If someone is killed, there is a criminal aspect of the case. At the same
Relevant provision
time, it can give rise to civil liability- either through an independent
civil action or civil action instituted in the same case.
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for
Other examples mentioned: rape, libel, estafa, fraud
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
Two liabilities involved in prosecution for murder:
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
1. Criminal
The Philippines adopts both concepts
State imposes penalty consisting of imprisonment
The same act or omission can be:
2. Civil
1. Tort but not a crime
Offended party can recover indemnity, not imprisonment
Ex: Breach of promise to marry

1|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
Independent Civil Action
3. Jurisdiction Anywhere
Defamation, fraud, and physical injuries are criminal cases, but by
express provision of the law, an independent civil action may proceed.
LEX LOCI DELICTI COMMISSI
It is both a crime and a tort because of the civil liability involved.
Governing Law
Relevant provision
Lex Loci Delicti Commissi - liability of torts should be governed by the
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil
law of the place where the tortuous act was committed.
action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
Three theories in determining the Lex Loci Delicti Commissi
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require
only a preponderance of evidence.
1. Civil Law Theory

CRIME BUT NOT TORT The LLDC is the place where the act began, regardless where
the act was completed or consummated.
No civil liability involved
Important: The Philippines adhere to the Civil Law theory.
Tort can be distinguished from crime in that there is damage suffered
or resulting from the act or omission committed by the defendant. 2. Common Law Theory
Otherwise, if it does not entitle defendant to civil liability, it is not tort.
The LLDC is the place where the
Example: Illegal possession of firearms
a) wrongful act takes effect
There is a law punishing such illegal possession. However, there is no
b) injury was sustained as a result of the wrongful act
civil liability involved. There is no participation of a private individual
c) act was completed
GR: No civil liability aspect for illegal possession of firearms.
3. Most Significant Relationship Theory
XPN: if the possession is used in committing another crime like
murder.
The LLDC is the law of the place which has the most significant
relationship
Atty. T: Most examples include special laws that are mala prohibitum
Saudi Arabian Airlines vs CA
TORT BUT NOT CRIME
Facts: The FA employed by Saudi Arabian airlines.It is in this
Example: Breach of promise to marry case where the SC applied the most significant relationship
theory in determiningl iability involving foreign elements.
It may be against public moral but there is no law that specifically
imposes a penalty for someone who breaches his promise to marry. Allegedly, there were tortuous acts committed in the
You can ask for civil liability if you can establish that the promise was Philippines as well as in Saudi arabia.
prompted by ill will or done in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs and public policy. (Art. 21) SC said that given the most significant factors attached or
involved in the dispute, mopst of them related to the
Illustration Philippines:

Mr. X induced Ms. Y to have sexual intercourse with him because of his
promise to marry her. However, there was deceit because he is
already married and can therefore not marry Ms. Y.
State as victim of a tort
Happens when the property of the State is damaged by someone else
like the service vehicle of the President. If you damage it intentionally,
there are two possible remedies:
1. Prosecution for tort causing damage to another
2. Prosecution for intentional damage to property
1. Nationality of the petitioner is a Filipino
2. The deceit happened in the Philippines - where she
was forced to return to Saudi in the guise of helping
her
3. The damage to her reputation occurred in the
Philippines
4. Saudi Arabian Airlines conducted business in the
Philippines
Important: No problem if the tortuous act was committed in one
territory. The difficulty arises when the tort arises from a series of acts
or omission occurring in more than one State.

Illustration
APPLICABLE RULES
A, standing on State A, shoots B, standing on State B.
Classifications
a. Civil Law Theory State A is the lex loci delicti commissi
1. Substantive Lex Loci Delicti Commissi
b. Common Law theory State B is the lex loci delicti commissi
2. Procedure Lex Fori

2|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
Lex Loci Delicti Commissi b. US case was filed; only Actual damages may be recovered

This governs matters on substance, example: Apply LLDC because this is a matter of substance. MENTAL may be
awarded.
1. Prescription
DEFENSES
2. Kind and measures of damages

3. Defenses This pertains to the defenses that the defendant may interpose. LLDC
applies, not the law where the action was filed.
TN: In tort,the act may happen in one country, but the casemay be
filed in another country, where:
DAMAGE INVOLVING GOODS IN TRANSIT
a) The defendant resides
Eastern Shipping Lines vs EAE
b) The defendant has properties
The case involves total loss of cargoes and so the insurance company
PRESCRIPTION paid the value of the policy, but the insurance company sued the
carrier. One of the issues is what law applies.
Prescription: A substantive matter
SC said that under the Civil Code, it provides that damage or loss of
the cargo should be determined by the law of the place of destination.
For purposes of COL rules on torts, prescription is characterized as
substantive matter, not procedural. Thus, LLDC will govern. We apply
But for the extent of liability, the same should be determined by
the Borrowing Statute.
applying COGSA. Under such law, the liability of the ship owners
liability is only up to $500, but if the value of loss is less than $500
Borrowing statute
then the shipper cannot be liable for more than the value.
Under the Civil Code, if an action has already prescribed where the
action accrued, it should be considered prescribed in the Philippines. PROCEDURE

Prescription is determined by the country where the tortuous act was Lex Fori
committed.
Law of the country where the action is filed.
Illustration
Lex Fori governs matters relating to procedure, examples
a. Philippines tortious act committed; tort prescribes in 4 years
1. Service of summons
b. US action was filed; tort prescribes in 5 years 2. Form of decision that may be rendered
3. Procedural matters
What should govern is the law in the Philippines on prescription. If 4. Remedy that may be availed of
beyond 4 years though not beyond 5 years, US still cannot anymore 5. Where to file
prosecute.
Illustration
TN: Do not confuse with the case of Cadalin and Dupo. Both cases a. A tortious act was committed abroad
apply the law of the Philippines on prescription despite it applying the b. Case filed in the Philippines
foreign law. Both cases involve Labor Law and Labor is protected by
no other than the constitution itself. Matters of procedure will be governed by Philippine Laws; LLDC
applies for substantive aspect.

DAMAGES
Maritime Torts
Kinds of damages awarded (MENTAL)
If the tortuous act is committed on board a foreign vessel, but within
Philippine waters:
1. Moral
2. Exemplary
3. Nominal 1. On board a Public Foreign Vessel
4. Temperate
5. Actual
Law of the flag
6. Liquidated
If foreign vessel is owned by the Cambodian Government, and
Extent the tortuous act was committed in the Philippine waters, apply
Cambodian law.
1. The total amount that can be recovered.
2. On board a Private or Merchant Foreign Vessel
2. The minimum amount that can be recovered.
Law of registry
Illustration
Law of the country where the vessel is registered regardless of
a. Philippines tortious act was committed; MENTAL may be the country or the nationality of the owner.
awarded.

3|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
If Committed in the high seas This is provided for in Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code
TN: But the PH courts cannot acquire jurisdiction (US vs Fowler)
Relevant Provision: (RPC)

Art. 2. Application of its provisions. Except as provided in the

1. On board a Public Foreign Vessel
treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code
shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including
Law of the flag
its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside
of its jurisdiction, against those who:
If foreign vessel is owned by the Cambodian Government, and
the tortuous act was committed in the Philippine waters, apply
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
Cambodian law.
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
2. On board a Private or Merchant Foreign Vessel
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands; chan robles virtual law
Law of registry
library
Law of the country where the vessel is registered regardless of
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
the country or the nationality of the owner.
these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in
the presiding number;
Crime Committed within the territorial vessels of the
Philippines 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; or
1. English rule - Emphasizes the territoriality theory.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security
and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of
GR: Jurisdiction is exercised by the Philippine Courts.
this Code.
XPNs:
Important: Do not confuse it with Generality theory, which is
1. If it involves internal peace or discipline of the vessel or among
provided in Article 14 of the Civil Code.
the crew or
2. When the offenses committed are minor or petty crimes or
Art. 14. Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be
3. When committed by the members of the crew.
obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory,
subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty
2. French rule - Emphasizes the nationality theory.
stipulations.
GR: Country whose flag the vessel flies.
The focus of Article 14 is on the person governed by our laws. Under
XPNS: Crime affects Article 14, anyone who lives and sojourns in the Philippines may be
subject to our laws.
1. Peace
2. Security
A foreigner who is in the Philippines cannot invoke his being a
3. Order
foreigner to escape liability because under the generality theory, he is
4. Safety of the territory covered by our criminal laws, but the exceptions are cases governed
by international law and treaty stipulation.
Distinction is mere theoretical
TN: The territoriality theory contemplates of two kinds:
The effects are the same in reality. The crime shall be cognizable by
Philippine courts.
SUBJECTIVE TERRITORIALITY
CRIME
The state where the crime began exercises jurisdiction regardless of
where the crime was completed.
General Rule Territoriality principle
People vs Tulin
Exception Protective Theory
Facts: There was a vessel sailing along Mindoro and was sea jacked by
THEORIES INVOLVED
pirates and brought to Singapore where the pirates unloaded the
cargo. The pirates eventually returned to the Philippines where they
1. Territoriality theory
were arrested and prosecuted. The alien who supervised the transfer
2. Nationality theory
was convicted as an accomplice and appealed to the SC saying that
3. Passive nationality Theory
under the territoriality principle, the PH courts have no jurisdiction over
4. Protective theory
the crime that he allegedly committed.
5. Electic theory
6. Universal / cosmopolitan theory
Held: SC rejected his argument advancing two grounds:

TERRITORIALITY THEORY First, while his involvement took place in SG, his participation was part
of the entire criminal process that started in the Philippines. The
seizure of the vessel started in the Philippines and continued until
The country where the crime was committed exercises jurisdiction over Singapore. The participation of Mr. Heung, although happened in
the crime and the criminal. Singapore, was part of the entire crime committed.

4|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
Second, as an exception of Art 2 of the RPC, the Philippines exercises
jurisdiction over those, which falls under the protective theory. Piracy,
in this case, is one of the enumerated exceptions.
OBJECTIVE TERRITORIALITY
The state where the crime is completed has jurisdiction over the case
A crime committed abroad, but completed in the PH, may be
prosecuted in PH courts.
US vs Bull
Facts: A Norweigian vessel loaded with animals from Formosa
(Taiwan) to the Philippines, The cruel manner by which the animals
were handled violated the existing laws. The crew and captain were
prosecuted.
Issue: Whether the PH court had jurisdiction considering that the
crime started in Taiwan?
Held: Yes, even if the crime started abroad, the fact remains that from
Formosa, the vessel entered the territorial waters of the Philippines
here the special law is enforced. Hence, the PH court has jurisdiction.
His prosecution as sustained because it was a continuing crime and
while here in the Philippines, the Philippine law was violated.
NATIONALITY OR PERSONAL THEORY
The country where the offender is a national has jurisdiction regardless
of where the crime was committed.
Example: If a German commits a crime in the Philippines, it is the
Germany court, which has jurisdiction. This applies regardless of where
the crime was committed.
PASSIVE NATIONALITY THEORY
The country of which the victim is a national has jurisdiction.
PROTECTIVE THEORY
This espouses the principle that the place whose peace and order or
security is violated regardless of where the crime was committed has
jurisdiction over the criminal.
The Philippines adheres to this theory as an exception to the
territoriality theory provided in Article 2 of the RPC, which states that
or penal laws shall apply even if the crime is committed outside or
territory, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands; chan robles virtual law
library
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in
the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security
and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of
this Code.
ELECTIC OR REAL THEORY
Espouses the principle that the country whose penal laws have been
breached or transgressed upon shall have jurisdiction.
Example: If the crime of rape is punishable in the Philippines, then PH
court may have jurisdiction even if the crime happened outside the
Philippines.
COSMOPOLITAN OR UNIVERSAL THEORY
The country where the offender is found or the country who has taken
custody of the offender has jurisdiction.
THEORY ADOPTED IN THE PHILIPPINES
The Philippines adopts the territoriality theory, both the subjective and
the objective and the Protective theory, by was of an exception.
GR: Territoriality theory
Exception: Protective theory
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. Except as provided in the
treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code
shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including
its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside
of its jurisdiction, against those who:
Exceptions falling under the Protective Theory:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in
the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security
and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of
this Code.
Crimes in Title One of Book Two of the RPC
TN: must memorize as the list is exclusive
a) Art.114 Treason
b) Art.115 Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
c) Art. 116 misprision of treason
d) Art.117 espionage
e) Art.118 Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals
f) Art.119 violation of neutrality

g) Art. 120 correspondence to hostile country
h) Art. 121 Flight to enemy country
i) Art.122 Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas
j) Art. 123 Qualified piracy
TN: Rebellion is not included (it came out in the Finals last year)
The exception under the protective theory is the one invoked by the
Supreme Court in the case of People vs Tulin, as a justification for
upholding the jurisdiction of the PH courts over Mr. Hueng, a
Singaporean. The SC said that apart from the fact that Mr. Heung was
part of the crime, piracy is one of the crimes enumerated as an
exception to the territoriality theory.
WHEN THE CRIME IS COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN
VESSEL
The following rules shall apply:
a) If the vessel is public and the crime was committed while on
the high seas
The rule is that jurisdiction should be exercised by the
country whose flag the vessel is flying. This is based on the
theory that the vessel is an extension of the flag country.
b) If the vessel is private or merchant and the crime is
committed while on the high seas
Same principle as number 1
c) If the vessel private or private commits a crime while in
territorial waters
There are two applicable rules:
1. English Rule
Emphasizes on the territoriality theory
Jurisdiction is exercised by the PH court except if it
involves internal peace of the vessel among the crew or
when it involves petty crimes among the crew of the ship.
US vs Bull
Facts: A Norweigian vessel loaded with animals from
Formosa (Taiwan) to the Philippines, The cruel manner
by which the animals were handled violated the existing
laws. The crew and captain were prosecuted.
Issue: Whether the PH court had jurisdiction considering
that the crime started in Taiwan?
Held: Yes, even if the crime started abroad, the fact
remains that from Formosa, the vessel entered the
territorial waters of the Philippines here the special law is
enforced. Hence, the PH court has jurisdiction.
2. French Rule
GR: Jurisdiction is exercised by the flag country
Exception: When the crime affects the peace, security
order and safety of the territory.
6|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
People vs Wong Cheng
This involves the prosecution for the Anti Opium Law
where the accused was caught smoking onboard a
foreign vessel.
SC said that smoking opium disrupted the peace,public
order and safety of the Philippines. Applying the
exception of the French Rule, SC said that PH court has
jurisdiction.
Paras: However, the difference between the two is more of academic
or theoretical difference because in truth, they both have the same
effect. The exception of one rule is the general rule of the other.
Thus, if aboard a German ship anchored in Manila Bay, the crime of
murder is committed, under the English Rule, the Philippines would
have jurisdiction in view of the general rule. Under the French theory
however, the Philippines would also have jurisdiction under the
exception, for the crime indeed affects the peace and order of the
territory. Whether we follow the French or the English rule on the
matter is not significant as the effects are just the same.
TN: Our penal laws are adhering to territoriality as well as the
generality principle. Meaning, PH penalizes not only citizens but
anyone who sojourns in the Philippines and who commits a crime
within the territory.
Additional Exception to Territoriality Theory
Principles of Public International Law and Treaty Stipulation
A crime may be committed in the PH but because of some applicable
principle in PIL or treaty stipulations, the crime may not be tried in the
PH courts.
Example: Criminal immunity enjoyed by some heads of states
PH - US Base Agreement where one of the agreement states that
crimes committed by US servicemen within the base is beyong the PH
jurisidiction.
CORPORATION AND OTHER JURIDICAL ENTITIES
CORPORATION
A corporation is a creation of law. For purposes of conflict of laws
rules, it is necessary to determine the personal law of the corporation
for purposes of determining the liability and legality of the transactions
of the stockholders
THREE THEORIES THAT DETERMINE PERSONAL LAW OF THE
CORPORATION
1. Theory of Place of Incorporation
the law of the country where the corporation was incorporated
or organized determines the personal law of the corporation.
This is the theory we adopt inferring from the provision of the
Corporation code that corporations organized in accordance
with the law other than the Philippines are considered foreign
corporations.
PROBLEM: Unscrupulous entities may organize in one country
and operate in another country which opens the possibility that
the corporation may evade legal claims since its liability is
based on the laws of where it was incorporated.
 2. Theory of the Place of the Center of Management 1. In accordance with the personal law of the corporation (law
of incoporation)
The law of the country where the board of directors live or
hold their office and renders decisions determines the personal 2. In accordance with the law of the place where the
law of the corporation regardless of operation of the business. transaction took place
This is based on the principle that a corporate being acts
through its board of directors. IMPT: These two should concur. Any variation shall render the
transaction invalid
PROBLEM: The Board of Directors might hold office in various
states and it would be difficult to determine which the place of
RIGHT TO SUE AND BE SUED of FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
management really is

3. Theory of the Place of Exploitation May a foreign corporation be sued or sue in the Philippines?

The law of the country where the corporation hold its principal
business or perform its functions determines the personal of
the corporation regardless of the incorporation or where the
Board of Directors sit.
PROBLEM: Corporation may have business enterprises
scattered all over the world and it would also be hard to
determine which personal law to use.
TN: In the Philippines, we adhere to the theory of incorporation by
virtue of Article 123 of the Corporation Code.
Relevant Provision:
Sec. 133. Doing business without a license. - No foreign corporation
transacting business in the Philippines without a license, or its
successors or assigns, shall be permitted to maintain or intervene in
any action, suit or proceeding in any court or administrative agency of
the Philippines; but such corporation may be sued or proceeded
against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid
cause of action recognized under Philippine laws.
Tuna Processing Inc. vs Philippine Kingford Inc.

Important: The personal law only applies to internal matters and Facts: There is a patent over a certain processing of tuna. Someone
transactions. obtained a patent right over this process. He entered into a contract
with 5 companies in the Philippines. They were given the right to use
the license under the patent. After some time, Philippine Kingford
INTERNAL MATTERS AND TRANSACTIONS
withdrew from TPI and the latter alleged breach of contract and sued
Philippine Kingford.
Internal Matters
TPI submitted the case to arbitration and obtained a favorable
The theory of Incorporation only applies to purely internal matters or judgment. Phil. Kingford now files a MTD because it has no legal
intra-corporate disputes involving purely internal matters. personality to sue because it is doing business without a license. TPI
invoked the provisions of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of
These internal matters consist of: 2004.

1. Requirements of Incorporation Held: SC said that the rule limiting the personality of foreign
corporation to sue is found in the Corporation code, which is a general
2. Kinds of stocks issued law. But the provisions of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act which
allows enforcement for arbitral award, is a special law. Under the law,
3. Amount of Dividends there are grounds that may be invoked to defeat the enforcement of
an arbitral award. However, lack of personality to sue is not one of
4. Rights and Obligations of the SH and members of tge board them.

5. Formation TN of this case: It can be an exception to Sec.133 if the action

involves a foreign arbital award.
6. Creation
Doing business here WITH license to do business
7. Organization
Such corporation may sue and be sued.
8. Dissolution
The requirement of license to do business is only required if the
9. Rights, duties, liabilities of Stockholders and Officers foreign corporation is doing business in the Philippines.

10. Other matters falling under the definition of intra-corporate Doing business here WITHOUT license to do business
matters
Cannot sue in the Philippines.
Transactions and Corporate Acts
The License is required for foreign corporations for regulatory
If the issue concerns with the validity of the corporate act, then it is no purposes, one purpose is to hold it liable for any just and available
longer an internal matter. claims that any party may have against it. If the foreign corporation
does not have a license to do business here, then it cannot complain
So if the corporation enters into a contract, it is no longer governed by that it is not allowed to seek redress before our courts.
the personal law of the corporation.

To determine the Validity of Transactions, the transaction must be

valid:

7|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
Effect of Contract if the Foreign Corp. has no license
If foreign corporation without license enters into a transaction with a
domestic corporation, such transaction as against the domestic
corporation is unenforceable in the foreign corporation feels aggrieved.
The foreign corporation can only file its claim once it subsequently
complies with the requirement of license.
NOT doing business but Transacted in the Philippines
If such is an isolated case, such foreign corporation may sue.
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS AND ESTOPPEL
A domestic corporation enters into a transaction with a foreign
corporation which does not have a license to do business in the
Philippines, and the foreign corporation would like to sue the domestic
corporation in relation to the transaction, will the suit prosper?
If the Foreign corporation is:
(a) not doing business in the Philippines but it pertains to an
isolated transaction
(b) action is to protect the goodwill of the foreign corporation
(c) actions to protect/enforce its intellectual property rights
RESULT: the domestic corporation cannot assail the lack of
personality of the foreign corporation to do business for lack of the
license if the foreign corporation sues the domestic corporation in
relation to the transaction as per the principle of estoppel.
If the foreign corporation is
(a) Doing business in the Philippines
ACCORDING TO THE SC:
estoppel still applies and these corporations juridical
personalities cannot be assailed
CRITICIZMS BY OTHER WRITERS:
estoppel should not apply because it would defeat the
purpose of having foreign corporations secure a license to
do business in the Philippines. Such requirement is
mandatory in nature and is regarded as a positive law and
therefore being a positive law, it cannot be rendered
nugatory by the equitable principle of estoppel.
BETTER VIEW:
Estoppel applies where the foreign corporation is not doing
business the Philippines, but is allowed to sue. This may
refer to a situation where the foreign corporation is not
doing business in the Philippines, but is engaged in an
isolated transaction.
Other situations where a foreign corporation may sue
despite not having a license are:
1. To protect the goodwill of theforeign corporation
2. In an action to enforce its property rights
8|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
ISOLATED TRANSACTIONS v. DOING BUSINESS
Doing Business
Presupposes continuity of conduct and intention to engage in a
continuous business in the Philippines
Isolated Transactions (of Foreign corporations NOT doing
business here)
Mere incidental or casual activity
Test to determine
NOT on the quantity or quality of transaction but rather on the nature
and character of the business as to indicate its intention to engage in
continuous business in the Philippines or not.
When the transaction is in line with the normal or principal business of
the foreign corporation, it is almost always engaged in the Philippines
regardless of the number, even if there is only one transaction to
speak of.
On the other hand, even if there are numerous transactions but these
are only incidental transactions not at all related to its principal
business, these are considered isolated transactions.
Illustration:
Condom Manufacturer:
Isolated transaction hiring of a model to fit the condoms
Principal Business distribution of condoms by a domestic corporation
JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN CORPORATION
1. Doing business here WITH license to do business
Summons may be served:
a) On the designated resident agent
part of the requirements for obtaining license is for
foreign corporation to designated its resident
agent in the Philippines to service summons on
b) If no designated agent of if designated agent is
NOT available or incapacitated or dead,
summons may be served on government
offices/agencies required or allowed by law to
receive summons on behalf of the foreign
corporation
c) OR agent in the Philippines or any of its officers or
employees
IMPT: Resident Agent takes priority. In the absence of such,
summons may be served either to the government offices or
any agent the foreign corporation has designated to enter
into any contract in behalf of the foreign corporation
2. Foreign Corporation Doing Business in the Philippines but
without license or no designated agent.
Section 12 has been recently amended on March 15, 2011.
The rules now provide for a specific provision which govern the
 particular service of summons and it can be served through
any of the following:
a) Personal Service
It may be coursed through the appropriate court in the
country where the defendant is found with the assistance of
the Deparment of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
This provision is an offshoot of the Northwest Orient Lines
ruling.
b) By publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the
country where the defendant may be found accompanied
with service of summons AND the order granting leave to
serve summons which must be coursed through registered
mail.
c) Facsimile or by any recognized electronic means, so long as
it would generate proof of service
d) Any other means the court at its discretion may direct.
Q: Does it include a situation where the private foreign corporation is
not doing business in the Philippines?
Sirs opinion:
The literal language of the law contemplates of a situation where the
private corporation is doing business in the Philippines but is not
licensed or has no resident agent. Otherwise, there is no point in
mentioning the clause not registered or without a designated agent.
Because if the foreign corporation is not doing business, then it is not
registered and it follows that there can be no resident agent.
But with the way the amendment is phrased, it would appear that it
presupposes a situation where the corporation is doing business but
not registered, especially so that the second paragraph is to be
understood in relation to the first paragraph.
JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT
DOING BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES
Our rules does not provide for a specific way, we only have
jurisprudence to help us.
1. By service of summons upon its agent found in the
Philippines
Crown International vs NLRC
FACTS:
This incolves a local or domestic coporation acting as agent
of a foreign employer. The domestic corporation recruited
somebody, a Filipino, to work abroad in Saudi Arabia. The
Filipino worker was terminated on the ground of inefficiency.
When he returned to the Philippines, he sued both the
foreign corp and the recruitment agency.
The Labor Arbiter adjudged both respondents as solidarily
liable. When the case reached the SC, one of the defenses
was that the Philippine courts has not acquired jurisdiction
over the foreign corporation since summons were only
served to the local recruitment agency.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court has acquired jurisdiction over the
case?
9|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
HELD:
One way of serving summons to a foreign corporation is
through its agent here in the Philippines. Admittedly, the
recruitment agency is considered as an agent of the foreign
corporation.
2. If there is a contract between the foreign corporation and in
that contract it expressly manifests its intention to submit to
the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts
Under the 2nd rule, summons by publication is sufficient.
Linger & Fisher GMBH vs IAC
FACTS:
This involves a transaction between a foreign corporation
and a company based in the Philippines. Their contract is
evidenced by a written agreement which stipulates that any
dispute that may arise between the parties in connection
with the transaction shall be cognizable by the competent
courts in the Philippines.
In this case, the defendants were served with summons
through publication.
ISSUE:
Was there a proper service of summons?
HELD:
Because of the said agreement, it is understood that the
foreign corporation voluntarily submits itself to the
jurisdiction of the courts. Therefore, summons by publication
is sufficient.
What if there is no contract to that effect? How does the domestic
court acquire jurisdiction over a foreign corporation NOT doing
business in the Philippines?
By not doing business, we mean that the said corporation has no
properties, no office, no resident agent.
Wang Laboratories vs Mendoza and ACCRA Law Offices
FACTS:
Wang Laboratories, through an exclusive distributor, entered into a
contract with ACCRA for the installation of a computer system to be
used in their offices. For one reason or another, the contract was not
executed and the computer program was not installed. ACCRA then
went to court to file a case against respondents. Summons was served
through the exclusive distributor in the Philippines,
Foreign corporation argues that since it is not doing business in the
Philippines, summons was not properly served.
ISSUE:
Whether there was proper service of summons?
HELD:
By the nature of the business, it cannot be said that defendant was not
doing business in the Philippines. In fact, other than the contract that
the foreign corp entered into with ACCRA, it was established that it
also cntracted with 26 other parties. Therefore, it was considered to be
doing business in the Philippines.
Whether the corporation is doing business in the Philippines or not,
service of summons may be done through its agent.
TN: Agent here refers to an agent in the ordinary sense of the word. It
is a person who acts for and in behalf of the other.
In this case, the exclusive distributor is considered an agent of the
foreign corporation.
Atty. T: It appears that under our jurisprudence, there is no
distinction between a croporation doing business / not doing business
because both can be served with summons through their agent in the
Philippines.
But what if there is no agent? Can we use the Amendment?
Sir had a very looong discussion in Spectra, but the bottom line is that
the amendment does not cover foreign corporation not doing business
in the Philippines. So, you can only serve summons through the
following:
1. If there is an agent
2. If there is an agreement
3. File the case in the country where the defendant is found
RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT
Every state, every country is superior over its own borders. In political
law, we call this sovereignty. We are superior over our borders. So
that, since every state is superior over its borders, it follows that, one
countrys laws have no extraterritorial effect. Meaning the laws of state
A have no extraterritorial effect/ do not take effect in the territory in
another country because this will amount to derogation of authority of
that other country.
General Rule: Laws shall only be effective on the territory of the
authority that promulgates it.
FORMS OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT
Forms of foreign judgment
1. One which directs the performance or grants an
affirmative relief.
2. One which involves a mere adjudication of the rights of
the parties.
GRANTS AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF
It directs the performance of an act.
Involves the recognition and enforcement of a foreign
judgment
When the winning party seeks that the judgment be implemented in a
foreign country, this is an affirmative process. In this action, the
winning party will not only ask the recognition of foreign judgment but
at the same time ask that the local court will direct the defendant to
perform the very act that the defendant is directed to do under the
foreign judgment.
Includes both recognition and enforcement of judgment. The winning
party will ask the court to direct the defendant to follow the decision of
the foreign court sought to be enforced.
10 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
It is subject to execution by the local court
If the judgment is allowed to be implemented, the local court will issue
its own writ of execution. It is as if it is foreign judgment that is
subject to execution by the local court.
This involves an active process. The court directs the losing party to
perform or do or not to perform or not to do a certain act. The winning
party may ask the country where the judgment is to be enforced to
issue an order to carry out the judgment sought to be enforce. Hence,
this includes recognition and enforcement.
Example: Action for sums of money.
The prevailing party who obtained a judgment abroad may file a
petition in the PH for recognition and enforcement of the foreign
judgment obtained abroad. Such party will ask the forum court to
direct the defendant to pay in order to make judgment effective in the
country where it sought to be enforced.
MERE ADJUDICATION OF RIGHTS
This involves the status of the parties and does not involve the
performance of an affirmative act.
Involves only recognition
If decision is sought to be implemented, process is only recognition.
This is a Passive process. The local court will not issue a writ of
execution because it does not involve the performance of an
affirmative / act. The local court will simply issue an order to the effect
that the foreign judgment is recognized in the Philippines.
Only need recognition of foreign judgment without asking the court to
direct anyone to perform an act.
It is a passive act and there is no need to ask affirmative relief
Example/s:
1. Divorce
2. Judgment recognizing legitimacy/filiation
Illustration: plaintiff files a collection case against defendant in the US
and the case was dismissed because defendant had already fulfilled his
obligation. Since the plaintiff is not satisfied with the ruling of the
court, he files the same case in the Philippines. The defendant may
simply use the judgment obtained in the US court as defense.
Note: In this case, it is simply a passive act because defendant is not
asking the court to direct any party to perform an act.
When the process of recognition takes place
1. Made as basis for a CLAIM
Example: A claim for an action for recognition for purposes
of remarriage
2. Invoked as a DEFENSE in an action
Recognition vis--vis Enforcement
These two always come together but they are not necessarily
inseparable. There is an instance that we can only go for recognition
without enforcement. But if we go for enforcement we always have to
go with recognition.
Recognition does not involve enforcement, but enforcement involves Philippines. Out of respect that every member of the international
recognition. community owes to the other members. Comity. Respect.

Recognition Enforcement RECIPROCITY OR THEORY OF MUTUALITY

Passive Remedy Positive Remedy RECIPROCITY OR THEORY OF MUTUALITY

When the foreign judgment is use
as the basis for a claim or
defense without seeking
affirmative relief, without asking
the doing of a particular act.
When someone seeks the Foreign Law or judgment may be allowed in another state by reason of
enforcement of foreign judgment mutual concession or agreement between the state.
that party actually or is in effect
asking the local court in the ATTY.T: Under this theory, the courts of foreign country may
Philippines to direct the recognize the judgment rendered by the court of another country if
implementation of the affirmative that other country also recognizes the judgment issued by the court of
relief already granted by the other state. Mutuality, so this is effected usually by in the form of
foreign court. mutual treaties. So this presupposes agreement between two states.
That they recognize its others courts judgments.

Example: the court of state A will recognize the judgment rendered by

JUSTIFICATION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT
Relevant Provision:
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.
the courts of state B if state B also recognizes the judgment of the
courts of state A. The judgment rendered in the court of state A may
be recognized or enforced in state B and thats pursuant to their
agreement. There can also be no derogation because of consent. By
entering into treaty, both states give its consent. How can that be
derogation.
THEORY OF VESTED RIGHT
THEORY OF VESTED RIGHT
If a law of any state creates certain rights that may be enforced or
recognized in any other state, what is being recognized or enforced is
not really the law of the foreign country where the right was created
but it is the right created by the law of the foreign country.

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.
Under Section 48 of Rule 39 of the Rules of court, Philippines
recognize and allow enforcement of foreign judgment. However such
recognition and enforcement is neither based on consent nor it is
based on treaties and international conventions. Instead, it is based on
the following reasons:
ATTY. T: Under this theory, a foreign judgment creates a vested right.
The right to enforce it anywhere in the world. Thats vested right. So
when a right is created pursuant to a judgment rendered by a court of
one state that creates a vested right that entitles the party to enforce
that right in any court everywhere. So its not actually the judgment
which is enforced in another state but its that right created by that
foreign judgment. There can also be no derogation.
THEORY OF RES JUDICATA

1. Theory of Comity THEORY OF RES JUDICATA

2. Reciprocity It is already adjudicated by the court in one state; it shall be binding

and conclusive upon the court of another state.
3. Theory of Vested right
ATTY. T: Once a judgment is rendered in a case involving the parties,
4. Theory of Res Judicata the determination made by the court in one country binds all the
parties in any and all future suits that either party may file in the other
country. When the issues have been litigated I one state, the parties
THEORY OF COMITY may not pursue a similar action involving the same issue and same
parties in another state in the hope that a favorable judgment may be
THEORY OF COMITY obtained. To prohibit forum shopping, the judgment rendered by one
state shall be recognized and given effect and may be pleaded as res
Courtesy or respect that each nation or country owes each other. judicata in a future cases that the parties may file in another state.

ATTY. T: We allow foreign laws or foreign judgments to be recognized The Philippines adopt the theory of comity as expressed in Section 48
and enforced in the Philippines out of respect. So there can be no Rule 39 of the ROC and partly of res judicata in its qualified form.
derogation there because we allow it. The recognition and
enforcement is done with consent so it cannot be construed as Two types of Res Judicata
derogation of our sovereignty because in the first place we allow it to
be done. Thats one justification and thats the primary justification of 1. Absolute
our rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment in the
Totally bars the relitigation of the case

11 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
 Example: When X obtains a favorable judgment for the
collection of sum of money in State B and A is unable to
enforce judgment in that country but X discovers that
defendant Y is found in State C, under this absolute form of
recognition/enforcement, X can always ask the sheriff in
State C to just garnish the bank accounts of the defendant
without going to court and without need of affirmative
action. This is because recognition/enforcement is absolute.
2. Qualified (Contemplated under Rule 39, section 48)
Qualified because while foreign judgment is presumed to be
valid, the defending party is given the opportunity to
impeach the foreign judgment on specific grounds.
Example: If a plaintiff obtained favorable judgment abroad
against the defendant and the judgment is not executed
because the defendant took flight and is now presently
found in State B, the plaintiff may ask for the recognition of
enforcement of the foreign judgment obtained in the first
state by filing the appropriate judicial action.
VALUE AND CONCLUSIVENESS OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT
Rule of Res Judicata re: Foreign Judgment
It depends on the concept of res judicata.
Strict Sense
The effect of res judicata prohibits, forecloses re-litigation of the same
case in Phils. even if rendered abroad. Provided that:
1. Same parties
2. Same issues
3. Same cause of action
Purpose of recognition & enforcement of foreign judgment
Do not follow rule on strict sense. Refer to Rule 39, Sec. 48 of ROC.
Judgment rendered by foreign court is subject to repeal and challenge
in Phils. on the ground of:
1. Lack of jurisdiction
2. Lack of notice to party
3. Fraud
4. Collusion
5. Clear mistake of fact or law or both.
Note: Judgment rendered abroad is not conclusive in Phils.
FILING FEES
The basis for the action is Rule 39, Sec. 48. Where do you file the
action? How much is the filing fee? In the case of Mijares v. Judge
Ranada, the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule on the nature of
the recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment.
Mijares v. Judge Ranada
Facts: Hundreds of claimants who claim to be victims of Marcos regime
instituted action in Hawaii and obtained a favorable judgment for a
12 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
substantial amount against the estate of President Marcos. However, it
could not have this judgment enforced abroad so they instituted the
action here against the estate of Marcos. They paid for a minimal filing
fee.
Argument of Estate of Marcos
The counsel for Marcos moved for the dismissal on the ground that the
correct filing fee was not paid. Non-payment of the correct filing fee is
jurisdictional as found in your Civil Procedure. It was argued by the
estate of Ferdinand Marcos that the action is capable of pecuniary
estimation therefore the filing fee should be based on the graduated
scale. Based on the computation, the filing fees was around P400, 000,
000.00 which the claimants could obviously not pay.
Argument of Claimants
The claimants argue that it is not your run of the mill action for
collection for sum of money. It is an action for enforcement of the
foreign judgment akin to an action for specific performance which is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Issue: Whether an action for enforcement or recognition of foreign
judgment is capable or incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Held: There is a distinction between a cause of action which is based
on the facts alleged in the complaint and the cause of action based on
judgment itself:
1. In an action for damages against the tortfeasor, the
plaintiffs cause of action is based on the factual allegations in the
complaintthe acts or omission involved in violation of plaintiffs
right and the damage sustained by the plaintiff. In pursuit of the
cause of action during the trial, the plaintiff will have to present
evidence to prove the factual allegation of the complaint
constitutive of the cause of action.
2. In an action for recognition and enforcement of foreign
judgment, what the plaintiff seeks to establish or the cause of
action there is the foreign judgment itself. What the plaintiff
needs to do is to prove the existence and genuineness of foreign
judgment. He does not need to prove the factual allegations of
the complaint because they have already been adjudicated
before the foreign court.
Nevertheless, whether the action is capable or incapable of pecuniary
estimation depends on the reliefs sought:
1. If relief sought involves payment of money, it is an action
capable of pecuniary estimation. In this case, the action
seeks payment of damages in the form of money against the
estate. Obviously, it is capable of pecuniary estimation.
IMPORTANT: It is not accurate to say that an action for enforcement
or recognition of foreign judgment is always incapable of pecuniary
estimation. If it involves payment of money like damages, it is capable
of pecuniary estimation.
2. If relief sought does not involve payment of money, it is
an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. Like divorce,
the plaintiff seeks recognition of a foreign divorce decree which
does not involve payment of money, so it is not capable of
pecuniary estimation.
Action is capable of pecuniary estimation; but filing fee
required was substantially paid
In this case, the Supreme Court accommodated the plaintiffs. While it
ruled that the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation because the
principal relief is payment of money. For purposes of filing fee, the
complaint for recognition of foreign judgment could not be treated in REPEL OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT
the same manner as plain collection for sum of money but it should be
treated under the provision which says action not involving property.
Repel of foreign judgment
It just so happens that the filing fee prescribed in this provision is so
minimal to correspond to the amount already paid by the plaintiffs. Sec. 48 provides for specific grounds which a judgment may be
The Supreme Court here acted like King Solomon. Sustaining the repelled (not allowed recognition or enforcement in the Philippines),
Estate of Marcos in ruling that it is an action capable of pecuniary viz:
estimation yet in the net result of the ruling, the plaintiff was still able
to pay, as they did, the required filing fee. 1. Lack of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is always with the RTC 2. Lack of notice

For purposes of jurisdiction, Supreme Court said that RTC has 3. Fraud
jurisdiction. With the declaration made by the Supreme Court that an
action for recognition of foreign judgment can either be capable or 4. Collusion
incapable of pecuniary estimation depending on the principal relief
involved in the action, an interesting question may be asked insofar as 5. Clear mistake of fact or law or both
jurisdiction is concerned.
In an action for enforcement of foreign judgment, the defendant will
If you look at our existing rules in jurisdiction, if an action is capable of impeach the judgment by any or some or all of these grounds
pecuniary estimation, the amount involved is jurisdictional in the sense mentioned under Sec. 48.
that if the amount involved is more than P400, 000.00, the jurisdiction
over the action is lodged with the RTC. Otherwise, it is lodged with the The judgment is rendered by a foreign country. It is sought to be
MTC. recognized and implemented in the Philippines. It is being impeached
on the allegation that the decision is void for the existence of the
What happens if the foreign judgment involves an amount which is aforementioned grounds. How does Philippine court before which the
less than P400, 000.00 in its peso equivalent?Does it mean that an action for recognition or enforcement is filed determine the merit of
action for enforcement of that foreign judgment which is capable of the grounds invoked by the defendant?
pecuniary estimation should be filed before MTC? Supreme Court,
albeit not raised in the complaint, already anticipated that What law determines the existence or non-existence of these
complication. The Supreme Court ruled that while this may be capable grounds?
of pecuniary estimation, this does not mean that jurisdiction can be
either with RTC or MTC because jurisdiction is always with RTC There have been theories invoked to address this issue.
even if capable of pecuniary estimation.
1. Laws of the country where the decision is rendered or by
Justification cited by the Supreme Court was Section 19 of B.P. 129 the foreign law
which says that The Regional Trial Court has exclusive jurisdiction
over actions not falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other The justification for this is that since the decision was rendered by the
court. foreign court, it is unrealistic and absurd to expect that it will observe
a foreign law in a decision pending before it.
Effect of Foreign Judgment
It is absurd to expect it to observe Philippine law in dealing with a
case filed before it when the foreign court did not even know that the
Refer to Sec. 48 of ROC judgment that it would render would be subject to an action for
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment in the Philippines.
Final Judgment/Order upon: Realistically, the court in Japan that decides the case would resolve
the case before it applying their own law.
Specific thing/ In rem Personal action/In personam
Conclusive Prima Facie evidence of rights Northwest Orient Airlines v. CA and CF Sharp Company
between parties and successors
in interest. In the determination of whether there was proper service of summons
and therefore whether jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
Since the property is located It may be rebutted by contrary was acquired by the Japanese court, the law of the Japanese court
outside of Phils, our courts cannot evidence. would apply, not the Philippine law.
touch upon the title. Whatever
judgment our court renders will 2. Laws of the country where the judgment sought to be
be a nullity because it does not enforced
affect properties outside its
borders. The justification for this view are the following:
Findings of the foreign court on May be repealed on the ground:
the title cannot be assailed. 1. Founded on privity of a. Article 39, Sec. 48. The very rule that allows recognition and
contracts enforcement of foreign judgment does not mention of a foreign
2. Judgment rendered is law particularly in the determination of the existence or non-
in personam existence of grounds for repel. The presumption there is that
3. Binds only a specific the law that should determine the existence of the grounds
person. should be Philippine Law.

b. When the plaintiff or the party which obtained a favorable

judgment abroad avails of our judicial machinery in an action for

13 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
 recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment, that party is
deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of our court, as
well as the laws under which our courts operate. It carries with
it its submission to the laws of the Philippines including laws that
existence or non-existence of the grounds.
Bourdard v. Tait
The issue whether there was proper service of summons over the
defendant was resolved on the basis of Philippine law consistent with
this view.
Facts: Emilie Elmira Renee Boudard, in her capacity as widow of Marie
Theodore Jerome Boudard and as guardian of her children born during
her marriage with the deceased, obtained a judgment in their favor
from the civil division of the CIF of Hanoi, French Indo-China, on June
27, 1934, for the sum of 40,000 piastras, equivalent to P56,905.77.
The judgment was rendered against Stewart Eddie Tait who had been
declared in default for his failure to appear at the trial before said
court.
The judgment was based on the action filed pursuant to the fact that
Marie Theodore Jerome Boudard, who was an employee of Stewart
Eddie Tait, was killed in Hanoi by other employees of said Tait,
although "outside of the fulfillment of a duty. The action filed before
the lower court was dismissed principally on the lack of jurisdiction of
the Court of Hanoi to render the judgment in question. The execution
of which this action was instituted in this jurisdiction. The decision
stated that Tait was not a resident of, nor had a known domicile in,
that country.
Trial Court: The evidence adduced at the trial conclusively proves that
neither the appellee nor his agent or employees were ever in Hanoi,
French Indo-China; and that the deceased Marie Theodore Jerome
Boudard had never, at any time, been his employee and Tait was not
duly tried or even summoned in conformity with the law. He was only
notified of the case when he was served with summons in the present
case.
Note on French Law re: summons
"SEC. 69 (par. 8). Those who have no known residence in France, in
the place of their present residence: if the place is unknown, the writ
shall be posted at the main door of the hall of the court where the
complaint has been filed; a second copy shall be given to the Attorney-
General of the Republic who shall visae the original."
But then, Exhibits E, E-1, F and F-1 show that the summons alleged to
have been addressed to the appellee, was delivered in Manila on
September 18, 1933, to J. M. Shotwell, a representative or agent of
Churchill & Tait Inc., which is an entity entirely different from the
appellee.
Issue/s:
1. Whether the lower court erred in not admitting Exhibits D, E, F
and H to M-1 of plaintiffs.
2. Whether the lower court erred in declaring that the Court of
Hanoi had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
3. Whether the lower court erred in dismissing this case, instead
of sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the amounts
claimed in the complaint as adjudged by the Court of Hanoi;
Held: It was really unnecessary for the lower court to admit Exhibit D,
E, F and H to M-1, nor can these exhibits be admitted as evidence,
because: a. Boudard failed to show that the proceedings against the
appellee in the Court of Hanoi were in accordance with the laws of
France then in force;
14 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
b. It appears that said documents are not of the nature mentioned in
sections 304 and 305 of Act No. 190. They are not copies of the
judicial record of the proceedings against Tait in the Court of Hanoi,
duly certified by the proper authorities there, whose signatures should
be authenticated by the Consul or some consular agent of the United
States in said country.
The best evidence of foreign judicial proceedings is a certified copy of
the same with all the formalities required in said sections 304 and 305.
for only thus can one be absolutely sure of the authenticity of the
record.
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 nonresidents, so
as to sustain a money judgment, must be based upon personal service
within the state which renders the judgment. The process of a court of
one state cannot run into another and summon a party there domiciled
to respond to proceedings against him. Notice sent outside the state to
a nonresident is unavailing to give jurisdiction in an action against him
personally for money recovery. There must be actual service within the
State of notice upon him or upon someone authorized to accept
service for him. A personal judgment rendered against a nonresident,
who has neither been served with process nor appeared in the suit, is
without validity.
The mere transaction of business in a state by nonresident natural
persons does not imply consent to be bound by the process of its
courts. The process of a court has no extraterritorial effect, and no
jurisdiction is acquired over the person of the defendant by serving
him beyond the boundaries of the state. Nor has a judgment of a court
of a foreign country against a resident of his country having no
property in such foreign country based on process served here, any
effect here against either the defendant personally or his property
situated here.
It cannot be said that the decision rendered by the Court of Hanoi
should be conclusive to such an extent that it cannot be contested, for
it merely constitutes, from the viewpoint of our laws, prima facie
evidence of the justness of appellants' claim, and, as such, naturally
admits proof to the contrary.
The effect of a judgment of any other tribunal of a foreign country,
having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment, is as follows:
1. In case of a judgment against a specific thing, the
judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing;
2. 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. (Sec. 311 of Act No. 190.)
In this case, the service of summons was served outside of Hanoi, in
the Philippine territory and the action is in personam. So it was argued
by the defendant that there was no proper service of summons and
therefore there was no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
But if you look at the French Rule the service was proper.
The Supreme Court said there that there was no proper service of
summons. According to the SC summons can be served only if the
defendant was there in Hanoi. And the summons was served there
while he was in Hanoi.
But in this case the defendant was in all the while in the Philippines.
Outside of Hanoi and therefore any service of summons outside the
territory of Hanoi does not vest jurisdiction in favor of the Hanoi court.
So in effect the SC there applied our own law on service of summons.
The case was decided sometime in 1935 or 1936.
Several years after the Boudard case, is the case involving an Indian
company v. Isabela Sugar Company. This case involves a transaction
between a foreign corporation and a Philippine corporation.
Indian Company v. Isabela Sugar Company
Facts: The transaction was for shipment of some goods. Under the
transaction, the foreign corporation was supposed to ship bags of
goods to Philippine corporation for a certain period specified in the
contract.
The foreign corporation in India, was not able to comply with its
undertaking to deliver the goods within the stipulated period. So there
was delay in the delivery of the bags of goods.
In the meantime, the Indian government increased the rate of the
export tariff, imposing taxes on the goods subject to transaction.
Under the contract, it was stipulated that any adjustment in the export
taxes should be borne by the buyer, by the Philippine corporation.
Invoking this provision, the foreign corporation demanded for the
payment of export taxes corresponding to the goods delivered beyond
the stipulated period. The Philippine corporation refused to pay or it
paid but subject to notice.
Contention of the Philippine corporation:
It should not be made to pay for the increase in the export taxes
because had the foreign corporation delivered the good on time, these
goods would have not been subjected to the increase of taxes.
Under Philippine law, a buyer has the right to rescind the contract if
the seller failed to comply with its obligation. A case now was filed in
India. It was subjected to arbitration, and then the arbitration tribunal
in India ruled in favor of the foreign corporation applying their own
rule there that is consistent with the stipulation in the contract.
While the judgment was enforced in India, the foreign corporation filed
a case in the Philippines to enforce the foreign judgment. In their
defense, they said that the judgment rendered by the Indian court is
vitiated by clear mistake of law.
Held: The ruling was sustained by the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court stated that, applying the Philippine law that as a buyer, the
Philippine company had the right to rescind the contract and that it
should not be made liable to pay the additional or the increase in the
taxes because it was due to the fault of the foreign corporation due to
the delay in the delivery of goods. The Supreme Court said that the
court in India committed a clear mistake in the application of a law,
vis--vis the facts.
Based on this jurisprudence, the advocate to the first view believed
that, for the validity of a foreign judgment, Philippine court should
apply Philippine law.
The contrary view believes otherwise.
They argued that jurisdiction is determined by the law of the place
where the action is filed and because the case was filed under their
law, jurisdiction on any of these grounds should be determined by the
place where the case was tried and a decision was rendered.
It would be absurd to expect and to require the foreign court to abide
by our own law here because the case was tried there. Why would you
expect a foreign court to abide by a foreign law when the case is being
tried before them? This is logical. Besides, jurisdiction is only a matter
of remedy of procedure. This should be governed by lex fori. The
15 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
matters of how to serve summons are matters of procedure and the
general rule is that it is governed by the law of the forum.
What is the better view?
3. Third Emerging View
A view that tries to balance between the two
Matters of remedy and procedure should be governed by the laws of
the country where the judgement was obtained. On the other hand,
matters of substance will be governed by the laws of the Philippines.
Consistent with this view are the following cases:
Asiavest vs Herras
An action for recovery of money arising from Antonio Herras personal
undertaking. The suit was filed by Asiavest Ltd before Hong Kong
Courts. For purposes of the suit, the HK Court served summons on
Herras in the Philippines. When Asiavest was unable to enforce the
favorable judgment, it failed an action in the Philippine court for the
enforcement of that judgement it obtained in the HK court. In his
defence, Mr. Herras sought to have the action dismissed on the ground
that the decision was void since it was not able to obtain jurisdiction
over his person. The SC said the law applicable to determine whether
there was proper service of summons (which concerns procedure)
should be the laws of Hong Kong. However, the Herras was not able to
prove the laws of Hong Kong on the service of summons, therefore the
principle of processual presumption was applied.
Applying Philippine Law now in an action in personam (recovery of
money), jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can only
obtained through person service or substituted service of summons
within the territory of the court where the action was filed.
Extraterritorial service of summons was not sufficient to vest
jurisdiction over the person.
In this case, it was established that the summons over Mr. Herras was
served outside Hong Kong, particularly in the Philippines, therefore the
service of summons was invalid.
This case illustrates the rule that for remedies and procedure, the law
that governs should be the law where the judgment was obtained.
Asiavest Merchant Bankers v. Philippine National Construction
Corporation
Similar principle with Asiavest Ltd. V. Herras.
This involves an action to recover indemnity on the performance bond
posted by Asiavest Merchant in favor of Philippine National
Construction, in connection with the latters undertaking in a particular
construction project. The case was filed before the Malaysian Courts in
Kuala Lumpur. In its effort to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant,
the Malaysian Court served a summons to the financial officer of the
corporation. Judgment was obtained in favor of Asiavest but was
unable enforce the judgment, so it filed an action in Philippine court to
enforce the judgment.
In its defense, Philippine Construction moved for the dismissal of the
action on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, lack of notice, fraud,
mistake of fact and law.
The SC ruled that on grounds relating to remedies and procedure, the
law of the country where the judgment was obtained, applies. In this
case, Malaysian Law.
On the first ground of improper summons, Phil Construction claimed
that the financial planning officer who received the summons was not
authorized to receive it in behalf of the corporation. The SC held that a
foreign judgment enjoys presumption of validity. It is incumbent upon
the person who seeks the repel of the foreign judgment to prove any
or some or all of the grounds mentioned in Sec. 48. In other words, it
is the burden of the defending party who is seeking to repel the
foreign judgment by proving its invalidity. In this case, Philippine
Construction was unable to prove the law in Malaysia on the service of
summons. For the failure of Philippine Construction to prove the
applicable law on the matter, the presumption of validity stands.
Atty. T: Some may wonder why the SC did not use processual
presumption in this case. It instead based its ruling on the
presumption of validity of the foreign judgment.
On the second ground, Phil Construction argued that there was fraud
or collusion because the lawyers who appeared for the trial and
obtained a compromise in the case were not authorized. The SC said,
under Malaysian jurisprudence, it is not necessary for a lawyer in
Malaysia to submit an SPA to represent a client. Every lawyer who
represents a client in Malaysia is presumed authorized to compromise
the case on behalf of his client. The law shows that there was no need
for the SPA and proof of authority was established by Malaysian
jurisprudence. This shows that the issue whether or not the lawyer
was authorized pertains to remedy or procedure and therefore
governed by the law of the country where the judgment was entered.
On the third ground. It was also argued that the decision was void
because it did not state clearly the facts and the law the decision was
based contrary to the Constitution of the Philippines. The SC said that
this is a matter of remedy and procedure and the form of the decision
is part of procedure and under Malaysian Law it is not necessary that
the decision should contain distinctly the facts and the law upon which
it is based.
All these ground are matters of form of procedure and remedies and
therefore must be governed by the laws of the country where the
foreign judgement was obtained.
Northwest Orient Airlines v. CA and CF Sharp Company
Facts: This is a case involving an airline company, Orient operating its
business in Japan, In pursuit of its business, the airline company,
entered into a contract with a Philippine corporation, CF Sharp,
wherein the latter undertakes to sell airlines tickets for the former.
But because Sharp failed to remit the proceeds, the airline sued before
Japanese Court. The summons intended for the Philippine corporation
was attempted to be served twice at its office in Japan but without
success, the first attempt was that the officer authorized to serve
summons was not around. The second attempt also failed because
while the officer was already there, he claimed that he is no longer
authorized or he is no longer connected with Sharp.
The summons not having been served, the Japanese court resorted to
service of summons thru diplomatic channel. Under this mode, the
Japanese court requested its Supreme Court to direct the service of
the summons to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, and then the
Ministry coordinated with the Japanese consular office in the
Philippines, and the foreign affairs coordinated with the Philippine
court.
The court now served summons on the defendant at its principal office
in Manila. When the Philippine corporation failed to participate in the
proceedings, the Japanese court rendered judgment in favor of the
airline. And when the judgment cannot be satisfied in Japan, the
airline filed an action before the Philippine court for the enforcement of
the foreign judgment.
16 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
In its defense, the defendant argued that the decision rendered by the
Japanese court is void because it is vitiated by lack of jurisdiction over
his person. It claimed that the service of summons was not proper,
relying on the case of Boudard v. Tait because like in that case, the
summons was served beyond the jurisdiction of the Japanese court.
Issue: What law should determine on the matter of service of
summons? Should it be the Philippine court or the Japanese court?
Held: The Supreme Court said, although the airline should have proved
the law of Japan for the service of summons. But in this case, the
airline failed to prove the Japanese law regarding the service of
summons. Under Philippine law, the law of Japan on the service of
summons could have been proven by modes allowed to prove foreign
law. Since the airline failed to prove the Japanese law on service of
summons, which should be proved as a fact, the Supreme Court said
that we now apply the principle of processual presumption, As such,
we now apply our own rules.
The Supreme Court said that under our own rules, service of summons
over the foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines may be
made by service upon its resident agent, appropriate government
officers designated by law, or its officers or agents in the Philippines.
The Supreme Court went on to explain in this manner:
The first mode of service, which is service upon its resident agent, is
not available because it was established that there was no agent left in
Japan representing the Philippine corporation.
The second mode, which is the appropriate government officer, the
Supreme Court said that this has been complied with.
The service of summons made thru diplomatic channel was compliant
with the second mode of service of summons. The summons was
served thru the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan to Japanese
embassy in the Philippines, to CFA, and then to our court. Our court
issued summon. This falls under the second mode of service of
summons.
Therefore, jurisdiction over CF Sharp Company was validly obtained by
Japanese court, therefore the judgment is valid.
Additional inputs from last discussion:
The SC again held that this is a matter of procedure which should be
determined by the law of the country where the judgment was
obtained.
The first justification advanced by the SC was presumption of validity.
Due to Sharps failure to prove the law of Japan on the service of
summon, the presumption of validity stands.
It furthermore said that in the alternative, for failure of Sharp to prove
foreign law on summons, the principle of processual presumption is in
order. Therefore, we now apply Philippine law in the service of
summons. In so doing SC sought refuge in a certain section that
covered service of summons on foreign corporations doing business in
the Philippines. Under such provision there were three options to serve
summons on a foreign corporation doing business:
1. Presentation to the resident designated for such purpose
2. Government officer designated by law to that effect
3. And any of its officers and agents in the Philippines
Under the second mode, there are certain officials designated for the
purpose:
1. Superintendent of banks for foreign corporations engaged
in banking business
2. Insurance Commissioner for foreign corporations engaged
in the insurance business
3. The SEC for all other foreign corporations
4. Diplomatic officials designated for that purpose (the SC only
first recognized that service of summons could be effected
through diplomatic officials in this case. In fact the SC
amended the rules on summons to include service of
summons by diplomatic channels. This amendment was
sired by this specific decision)
On processual presumption
SC used the processual presumption only as an alternative. Its first
argument is the presumption of validity of the foreign judgment.
For failure of Sharp to prove the laws of Japan on service of summons,
the presumption of validity stands. However, the Court went on to say
that, in the alternative, for Sharps failure to prove the foreign law, the
principle of processual presumption applies, hence, application of
Philippine law on service of summons.
Recall that in Asiavest Merchant Bankers v. CA and Phil. National
Construction Corp. (PNCC), the Court no longer applied processual
presumption. It merely ended on the presumption of validity of foreign
judgment.
Atty. T: With the ruling in Asiavest (Merchant Bankers) and
Northwest, it appears that the application of processual presumption is
not mandatory. The Court may either stick to presumption of validity
or it may go step further by applying processual presumption.
TN: There are two Asiavest cases:
1. Asiavest Merchant Bankers v. CA and PNCC
Used to compare with Northwest case on processual
presumption)
2. Asiavest v. Heras
Used to compare with Northwest case on extraterritorial
service of summons
On Extraterritorial Service of Summons
In applying the Philippine law, SC sought refuge in the provision of
Rules of Court, particularly the rule governing service of summons on
foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. Under that
provision, there are three ways to serve summons:
1. Resident agent
2. Government officer designated by law to that effect
3. Agent or officer of corporation
For the second mode which is thru a government officer, there are
designated officers, namely:
a. Superintendent of banks if FC is engaged in banking
b. Insurance Commissioner if FC is engaged in insurance
c. SEC for all other types of corporations
17 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
d. Diplomatic official designated for this purpose
Atty. T: The rule provides only for the first three but in
Northwest case, SC recognized service of summons thru
diplomatic channel. This is the first time, and because of
this, SC seems to have amended the rules of summons to
include diplomatic channel.
Northwest v. Sharp vis--vis Asiavest v. Heras
Northwest case involves an action in personam (collection of sums of
money) but the service of summons was effected here in the
Philippines which is extraterritorially, albeit thru diplomatic channel. In
Asiavest v. Heras, SC said that for actions in personam, extraterritorial
service of summons is not allowed. Though Northwest and Asiavest
involves the same kind of action but the validity of service of summons
was treated differently since in the former, it was upheld while in the
latter, it was declared invalid.
To reconcile the Northwest and Asiavest (v. Heras)
SC said that the rule which says that extraterritorial service is not a
valid service of summons in an action in personam because service
should be done within the territory where the court sits, only applies
when the defendant is not a resident of the country where the court
sits.
Asiavest v. Heras Antonio was not a resident of Hongkong when
the action was instituted.
SC: Extraterritorial service is NOT allowed.
Boudard v. Tait Mr. Tait was no longer in Hanoi, French Indo-
China when the action was instituted.
SC: Extraterritorial service is NOT allowed
Northwest v. Sharp It was established that Sharp maintains three
branches in Japan. Obviously, Sharp is a
resident FC.
SC: Even if it was through extraterritorial
service, it was enough to acquire jurisdiction
over the defendant
Atty. T: As it is now, we need to make a distinction between a
resident and a non-resident.
Non-resident Foreign
Resident Foreign Corporation
Corporation
Extraterritorial service is NOT
Extraterritorial service is allowed allowed
(Northwest v. Sharp) (Asiavest v. Heras and
Boudard v. Tait)
TN: For corporation, it is a resident in that state if it is doing business
there.
Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs CA and Pacific Cement
Company
Facts: This involves an action for enforcement of foreign judgment; a
judgment of an Indian Court. One of the issues is the form of decision
because the decision sought to be enforced is like a dispositive portion
only. So the defendant impugned the validity of the decision on the
ground that under the Constitution, the decision must state clearly and
distinctly the facts and the laws from which it is based.
Ruling: Matters of remedy and procedure should be governed by the
law of the country where the decision was rendered. If this kind of
decision is valid under the laws of India, then there is no cause to
complain just because their law on the matter is different from ours.
Matters of remedy and procedure is governed by their law.
Atty. T: Court said that even applying Philippine Law, the decision is
valid since memorandum decision is valid. This kind of decision does
not contravene the requirement of the Constitution. It is actually
compliant.
Memorandum decision makes reference to the decision of lower court.
By doing so, the higher court is deemed to have adopted the decision
of lower court. That decision of lower court which states clearly and
distinctly the facts and law of the case is deemed incorporated in the
decision of the higher court. This is called memorandum decision. This
is especially allowed in cases involving technical matters and lengthy
decision to spare appellate court from the trouble of making its own
(which obviously it cannot due to reasons such as expertise), they just
adopt decision of lower court.
MISTAKE OF FACT AND LAW
On the other hand if the ground is substantive like question of fact and
law we have the case of:
Soorajmull Nagarmull vs Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company
Inc.
Facts: This is a contract involving the delivery of certain bags. The
defendant, the Philippine company, under the contract was supposed
to deliver a kind of bag to be used in packing sugar. They were
supposed to deliver volumes of bags from India. The delivery was
supposed to be made in July, August, September and October 1949,
installment for 4 months. In accordance with the contract, the
defendant delivered on July, August and September but the delivery
was short by a number of bags, 159 bags. The fourth delivery on
October was made on time. By October of 1949, India imposed
additional rate for export taxes. So for the fourth delivery, the Indian
company required the Philippine company to pay the additional
increase on the export tax which is covered by the contract. The
contract says that any increase on the export tax should be shouldered
by the supplier, the Philippine company.
But the problem was there were deliveries that were supposed to be
made on July, August and September but were not fully delivered by
the Indian company. So feeling short-changed, the Philippine company
demanded for the delivery of the shortage, the 159 bags. The Indian
company now asked for the increase in the export tax. The Indian
company was willing to deliver the shortage but asked for the payment
of additional increase in the export tax because it is now covered by
the new law that imposes the additional rate, but delivery was to be
made on October.
On the other hand, the Philippine company refused to pay, arguing
that it is the Indian company's fault that they not deliver the 159 sacks
on time, had you delivered it in time before October, these items
would not have been imposed additional export tax. But the Indian
company was also smart, it said had you not demanded for the
delivery of the shortage, I would not have delivered this and therefore
I would not have collected for additional rate.
Held: SC sustained Binalbagan and held that under the basic and
fundamental rules on contracts, the aggrieved party, in case of breach
of contract has the right to either
1. Ask for rescission of the contract or
2. Demand for specific performance,
TN: Both remedies entail damages.
18 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
In the foreign judgment sought to be enforced, Binalbagan was
directed to pay the increase of tax. But SC said that this decision is
contrary to the basic principle on contract.
Supreme Court said you cannot blame the Philippine company for
exercising a right, a right which it is entitled to under the law. The
right of a party in a reciprocal obligation to either demand for specific
performance or rescission of the contract with damages in either case.
The Supreme Court apparently is referring to Art- 1191 of the civil
code "right of the party in reciprocal obligation with the other parties
unable to deliver or perform what is incumbent upon him". So this
case illustrates the application of the principle of a case if the ground is
substantive, like in this case, the application of the law, the issue is
legal so it should be Philippine law.
SC said that when Binalbagan already demanded for the delivery of
the 154 bags, it was only exercising its rights under Art. 1191 for the
specific performance. Binalbagan has the right to ask for damages,
such damages consist of the increase export tax which should be
shouldered by Nagarmull.
Atty. T: It was obvious that SC substituted its judgment for that of the
foreign court in so far as the law applicable is concerned. Because of
this decision, most writers take the position that if the ground of
repelling judgment is that of the clear mistake of law or facts, that
ground (the existence or non existence of the ground) should be
determined by Philippine law. Although, SC did not mention Philippine
law.
Fujiki vs. Marinay and Mijarez vs. Ranada
In both cases, SC ruled that the authority of our court to review
foreign judgment in an action for recognition or enforcement of foreign
judgment, is limited. Limited in a sense, that our courts can only
review matters extrinsic to the merits of the decision. Like lack of
jurisdiction, lack of notice, fraud (in preventing the other party to
participate in the case), and the like. But mistake of facts or law is the
merits of the decision.
In Binalbagan case, it obviously dwells on the merits of the decision.
This case was decided long before Fujiki and Mijares cases. So the
trend now is to limit the grounds for repelling Foreign Judgment to
grounds outside the merits of the case. Therefore, the decision of the
foreign court in so far as the facts and law should be immune from
review.
SC further ruled that if our court will review the judgment of the
foreign court, this will force the parties back to their original position
and render the previous litigation, immaterial. The very essence of the
action for recognition or enforcement of foreign judgment is to prevent
re-litigation of claims and issues already decided in the previous case.
In short, finding of facts or laws should be respected. Hence, party
may only repel foreign judgment base on grounds other than the
merits of the judgment.
Important: For mistake of law or facts to be a ground for repelling
judgment, such must relate to something other than the merits of the
case.
Question: If the trend now is that the court has limited power to
review those matters extraneous to the judgment, so the courts
cannot determine whether or not the foreign judgment is against our
own law and public policy?
Atty.T: The court can recognize that, that is the law that is applicable
to such dispute but it doesnt mean that well have to enforce it. The
exception to the application, enforcement or recognition of foreign law
is if it is against public policy. In fact, primary consideration is whether
or not the foreign judgment is consistent with our public policy. So
even if theres no mistake of facts or law because it is in accordance
with the evidence, but because the overall judgment is against our
public policy, we cannot enforce it.
DIVORCE
Obrecido case
SC ruled that if the divorce decree is obtained by an alien spouse
abroad and the Filipino spouse wishes to remarry, the remedy is Rule
63 (Declaratory Relief). It must show that the divorce decree is in
conformity of the foreign law allowing divorce without specifying which
law.
Koiki vs Koiki
A Japanese national married to a Filipina. The Japanese national
obtained divorce decree in Japan. The Filipina wanting that the divorce
decree be recognized in the Philippines, she must file an ordinary civil
action for recognition special civil action for recognition of the divorce
decree and recognition of her capacity to remarry. It means that
declaratory relief is not an exclusive remedy available to the Filipino
spouse. The requirements for the recognition of divorce decree are as
follows; the existence and genuiness of the foreign divorce decree and
its validity should be established by proof of foreign law.
Bayot vs CA
In this case the divorce decree was obtained by the American wife, in
Dominican Republic. After which, she filed an action for the nullity of
their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity before
Philippine court. The Filipino husband moved for the dismissal of the
action for lack of cause of action on the ground that there was already
divorce decree obtained abroad. Therefore, theres no more cause of
action for either of them.
The SC clarified that for purposes of determining the validity of the
divorce decree, it is not the law of the country where the divorce
decree was obtained but the national law of the alien spouse which will
be considered.
In this case, the wife was an American and American law recognizes
divorce decree and therefore there was no more marriage to speak of.
The American wife has no more cause of action to still file a petition
for nullity of marriage. The SC never mentioned any law of the
Dominican Republic.
The validity of the divorce was determined solely based on US Law as
the national law of the alien spouse.
IMPORTANT: It is the national law of the alien spouse that is needed
to be proved in order to demonstrate the validity of the divorce
decree.
Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas
This case illustrates to us that if it were the alien spouse who wishes to
remarry in the Philippines, his remedy is either:
1. Ordinary action for recognition of a foreign judgment of
divorce.
2. Filing of petition for correction of entry under Rule 108 and
ask the court for 2 reliefs.
Reliefs sought are:
a. Recognition of foreign decree
b. On the basis of such recognition, for the correction of
his entry available at the local civil registrar.
In this case, SC ruled that the alien spouse and the Filipino spouse
have different causes of action. The alien spouse cant avail of the 2nd
19 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S
par. of Art. 26 since it is not his cause of action. His cause of action is
Rule 39, Sec. 48. On the other hand, the cause of action of the Filipina
spouse is the 2nd par. of Art. 26.
Problem: For the same purpose. What if both alien and Filipino
spouse come to you for legal assistance? Do you need to file 2
separate actions or should you file only one?
Atty T: The judgment in a divorce decree is an action in rem and is
therefore binding to the whole world. It should be recognized in so far
as the alien spouse and so he does not have to file the same action for
the same purpose. But then, you have the ruling in Corpuz v. Sto
Tomas.
If it is the Filipino spouse alone, the remedy is to file a declaratory
relief according to the Obrecido decree. But if the alien spouse also
wishes to remarry, a petition for declaratory relief will not benefit the
alien spouse. So, you may file under Rule 108 with both as petitioners.
Remedy of Rule 63 in Obrecido is not an exclusive remedy
Medina v. Kioke
Rule 63 is not an exclusive remedy. So if ordinary action for
recognition is allowed for the Filipino spouse and recognition may be
done in a petition for correction, then why not.
Note: If the one of the spouses filed ahead, it is supposedly binding
but still you have the rulings of SC. Just argue for your client.
THINGS TO REMEMBER IF YOU ARE THE PARTY SEEKING
ENFORCEMENT:
1. A foreign judgment enjoys the presumption of validity and
regularity- all you need to do is to prove the existence and
authenticity of the foreign judgment except if it is a foreign
divorce judgment because the rule is more stringent.
2. The grounds to repeal are specific but this is not the only
grounds. Always remember the exception that if the foreign
law runs counter to the public policy of the forum. So if it is
against public policy then it cannot be applied here.
PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT
JURISDICTION
RTC Jurisdiction
An action to enforce foreign judgment shall be filed with the RTC. It is
considered as actions incapable of pecuniary estimation.
TN: Even if the action involves money judgment abroad and it is
sought to be enforced in the Philippines the action remains to be
incapable of pecuniary estimation because in reality it is not an action
for collection but it is simply an action intended to enforce a judgment
obtained abroad.
Res judicata of foreign judgment
When a foreign judgment is affirmed by a domestic courtour own
court finds that the foreign judgment is not vitiated by lack of
jurisdiction, lack of notice, collusion, fraud, or mistake of foreign law
that's the time that the foreign judgment becomes res judicata. It
cannot be therefore re-litigated in another subsequent proceeding.
Considered a Decision of a domestic court
When the domestic court sustains the validity of a foreign judgment, a
decision of the foreign court is considered as a decision of the
domestic court. The foreign judgment will now be executed by the
local sheriff in accordance with our rules on execution of judgment.
Once approved by the court, it now partakes the nature of a judgment
rendered by a domestic court and should be executed according to
domestic rules.

Question of fact of law should refer to those other than the merits

GOOD LUCK, EH 404 !! XOXO <3

20 | U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S | C O N F L I C T O F L A W S