St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd. V.
Grand International its person, and that the judgment is void for
Airways, Inc.
G.R. No. 140288 | October 23, 2006
FACTS:
 St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd., (St. Aviation) is
a Singapore-based corporation engaged in the
manufacture, repair, and maintenance of airplanes and
aircrafts. Grand International Airways, Inc. (GIA) is a
Filipino corporation engaged in airline operations.
 Jan. 1996: Parties executed an “Agreement for the
Maintenance & Modification of Airbus A300 B4-103
Aircraft Registration No. RP-C8882,” (Agreement #1),
under which St. Aviation agreed to maintain and modify
GIA’s aircraft.
o In the same month, the parties verbally agreed
that St. Aviation would also conduct repair and
maintenance work on GIA’s other aircraft (Aircraft
No. RP-C8881), under similar terms as Agreement
#1.
o St. Aviation conducted the works and then
delivered the two aircraft to GIA, billing them a
total of USD 303,731.67 for work from March 1996
to October 1997. However, in spite of St. Aviation’s
continued demands, GIA failed to pay.
 Dec. 1997: St. Aviation filed an action to collect the sum
demanded in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
(Suit No. 2101). On motion of St. Aviation, a Writ of
Summons was issued and was served extraterritorially on
GIA, through the assistance of the sheriff of Pasay City.
However, in spite of receipt of summons, GIA failed to
answer the claim.
 Feb. 1998: On motion of St. Aviation, GIA was declared
in default.
 Aug. 1998: St. Aviation filed a Petition for Enforcement
of Judgment in RTC, Br. 117, Pasay City.
o GIA filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the
High Court had failed to acquire jurisdiction over
having been rendered in violation of GIA’s right to
due process.
 Oct. 1998: The RTC denied GIA’s motion, holding that
neither claim was a ground for a motion to dismiss under
the Rules of Civil Procedure.
o On appeal to the CA via Petition for Certiorari, the
CA reversed the RTC, on the ground that, being a
personal action for the collection of a debt, it is an
action in personam, and thus personal or
substituted service is necessary in order to confer
jurisdiction on the court.
o St. Aviation’s Motion for Reconsideration was
denied. Hence, the instant recourse to the SC
on Motion for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
 W/N the High Court of Singapore had acquired jurisdiction
over GIA by means of extraterritorial service of summons.
 W/N the decision rendered by the High Court of
Singapore in Suit No. 2101 is enforceable in the
Philippines.
RATIO:
 Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, Sec. 48, Rule 39, in
order for a foreign judgment to be recognized and
enforced in the Philippines, it is necessary that:
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;
 Under this rule, a foreign judgment is merely a
presumptive right as against the losing party. It may thus
be rejected by a showing of a lack of authority or a want
 of notice. Hence, it becomes necessary to determine
whether or not the High Court had appropriate
authority over GIA, via the provision of sufficient
notice as required by law.
 GIA’s contention of the High Court’s failure to acquire
jurisdiction over it is unavailing. As a rule, procedural
issues, such as those relating to service of parties to a
suit are governed by the lex fori, or the internal law of the
forum—in this case, the law of Singapore.
o In this case, St. Aviation obtained leave of court to
serve a Writ of Summons outside Singapore, “by a
method of service authorized by the law of
the Philippines for service of any originating
process issued by the Philippines,” in accordance
with Singapore law. In the Philippines, jurisdiction
over a party is acquired by service of summons by
the sheriff.
 The Pasig RTC Sheriff's Return shows that it
was received by GIA’s Secretary to the
General Manager. However, regardless of
this, GIA ignored the summons, and was
duly declared in default.
 In light of the actual service upon GIA of the Writ of
Summons, the default judgment rendered by the
Singapore High Court is clearly valid.

WHEREFORE, the RTC GRANTED the petition, and directed the

RTC to hear the case for enforcement.