You are on page 1of 5

The effects of the foreign judgment are stated in Section 48 of Rule 39 of the

Rules of Court. Thus, it states that:


Section 48. Effect of Foreign judgments or final orders.- The effect of judgment or
final order of 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, the judgment or final
order is conclusive upon the title to the thing; and
b. In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final
order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
The effects of domestic and foreign judgments are stated in Section 47 of Rule
39 of the Rules of Court, it states that:
Section 47. Effect of judgments or final orders.- The effect of a judgment or final
order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the
judgment or final order, may be as follows:
a. In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in respect to
the probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of a deceased person,
or in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or status or
relationship of the person , however, the probate of a will or granting letters of
administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the testator
or intestate;
b. In other cases, the judgment of final order is, with respect to the matter
directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in
relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in
interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special
proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the
same capacity;
c. In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in
interest. That is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final
order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was
actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
It should be noted that Section 47(a) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court embraces a
wider scope of the effects of a domestic judgment than that of a foreign judgment
provided in Section 48(a) of Rule 39, as the latter limits the effect of conclusiveness of

foreign judgment or final order to the title of the thing, while the former includes
judgment on the matters. Will this mean that the effect of a foreign judgment is not
conclusive on the probate of a will, the administration of estate, or the legal condition or
status of a person or his relation to another, as domestic judgment thereon is conclusive
while foreign judgment is silent on such matters?
One of the requirements for giving effect to foreign judgment, is that for foreign
judgment or order to be final, a judgment or final order is the laws final word
pronounced by a competent authority in a controversy submitted to it.
The word final refers to one which disposes of the case on the merits and
leaves nothing more to be done by the trial court.
Foreign court must have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction refers to two things: jurisdiction
over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. To be
accorded recognition, the foreign court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter
and of the person of the defendant.
Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the case is conferred or
defined by the Constitution or by law, so that if Philippine law will apply to determine the
courts jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the person of the parties is acquired by either voluntary
submission to the courts jurisdiction, as by filing a pleading or by service of summons.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the nature of the cause of action and
of the relief sought, which is vested by law and which is not acquired by consent or
acquiescence of the parties, nor by the unilateral assumption thereof by a tribunal,
neither can it be fixed by the will of the parties, nor can it be acquired through, or
waived, enlarged or diminished by, any act or omission of the parties, nor can it be
conferred by acquiescence of the court or tribunal.
Jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner or plaintiff is acquired by the latters
filing the initiatory pleading and paying the required docket filing fees. Jurisdiction over
the person of the respondent or defendant is acquired by the service of summons or by
his voluntary submission to the authority of the court or tribunal.
Another requirement of due process is that there be that degree of objectivity on
the part of a judge sufficient to reassure litigants of his being fair and just.
Due process simply means, first, that there shall be a law prescribed in harmony
with the general powers of the legislative department of the government; second, that
this law shall be reasonable in its operation; third, that it shall be enforced according to

the regular method of procedure prescribed; and fourth, that it shall be applicable alike
to all citizens of the state or to all of a class.
Foreign judgment must be for a specific amount. A foreign judgment for payment
of money must specify the amount which the losing party must pay, which is generally
contained in the dispositive portion thereof. The subject of execution is the dispositive
part of the judgment.
Judgment must not be contrary to public policy or good morals. It is recognized in
private international law that foreign decrees or judgment cannot be enforced or
recognized if they contravene the public policy of the forum.
A foreign judgment which is against our laws or good morals cannot be
recognized nor given in our country. This usually applies to divorce decree or judgment
rendered in another country, which is not recognized in our jurisdiction, and rights
dependent upon or arising from the divorce decree cannot be enforced.
The grounds to repel foreign judgment, where foreign judgment is vitiated by
want of jurisdiction. A foreign judgment may be vitiated by lack of jurisdiction either on
the subject matter or on the person of the defendant, or both subject matter and on the
person of the defendant. The defendant is entitled to prove that the judgment is null and
void on such ground; and a foreign judgment which is void is not entitled to be enforced.
If the action filed in a foreign country did not implead other indispensable parties,
such that the foreign court did not acquire jurisdiction over them, the judgment in invalid
because there will be no final determination of the case that can be made if the
indispensable parties are not impleaded. The nullity of a decision arising from lack of
jurisdiction may be determined from the record of the case, not necessarily from the
face of the judgment itself.
The foreign court must have acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant either by his voluntary appearance or by proper service of summons upon
him. If the action filed against him is an action in personam and he us a nonresident of
the foreign country, the foreign court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person, absent
any voluntary appearance, otherwise the judgment against him is null and void and
cannot be recognized in the country.
Want of notice to the party is actually a violation of procedural due process. Due
process imports matters of procedure and matters of substance.
The essence of procedural due process is that a party be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of his
defense. It means giving every party the opportunity to be heard and the court to

consider every piece of evidence presented in his favor. The most basic tenet of due
process is the right to be heard.
As applied to judicial proceedings, the requirements of due process are satisfied
if the following conditions are present:
1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and
determine the matter before it;
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or
over the property which is the subject of the proceedings;
3. The judgment must be given opportunity to be heard ; and
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Where foreign judgment is vitiated by fraud, an extrinsic or collateral fraud is one
where the effect of which prevents a party from having a trial, or real contest, or from
presenting all of his case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining, not
to the judgment itself, but of the manner in which it was procured so that there is not a
fair submission of the controversy. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the
prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case,
whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the
case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. The facts upon which the
extrinsic fraud is based must have not been controverted or resolved in the case where
the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered.
Intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party in litigation during the trial, such as the use
of forged instrument s or perjured testimony, which did not affect the presentation of the
case; nut did prevent a fair and just determination of the case. Were not this rule, there
would be no end to litigations, perjury being of such common occurrence in trial, and it
is the business of the other party to meet and repel his opponents perjured evidence.
Collusion may however refer to mutual fraud by both parties, to secure a
judgment they mutually desire either for or against one part. In such instance they
mutually desire either for or against one party. In such instance, there is violation of the
right to due process of the party who lost the case.
Where foreign judgment is clear mistake of law or fact, Section 48 of Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court authorizes a defendant to repel such judgment by showing that the
foreign court committed a clear mistake of law or fact or both.
One of the grounds to repel a foreign judgment sought to be enforced in the
Philippines is by evidence of clear mistake of law or fact or the judgment is clearly
erroneous in law or in fact or both.

Mistake of law, it is a mistaken opinion or inference, arising from an imperfect or


incorrect exercise of judgment, upon the facts.
A mistake of law raises a question of law; and there is a question of law when
there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of fact, or whether the conclusion
drawn from the facts is correct. Hence, a mistake of law is the incorrect application of
the law on the given facts.
A mistake of fact raises a question of fact and there is question of fact when the
doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts; or when the
query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the
credibility of the witnesses, existence and relevancy to specific surrounding
circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the
situation. A mistake of fact refers to mistaken judgment or incorrect belief as to the
extrinsic or effect of matters of fact or to the misapplication or misapprehension of the
facts. The court commits mistake of fact when it overlooked, ignored or misinterpreted
certain facts which, if considered, would alter the result of the case.
As to foreign judgment to conform with constitutional requirements, Section 14,
Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution requires that No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based.
The requirement as the form of a decision is a requirement of due process that
the parties to litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of factual
and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court.