1.

TESTS; JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE; REOPENING OF THE Juico TO RECEIVE PROOF OF

AMERICA court decisions. - The court has judicial notice of decisions of the Court of Appeal
and the District Court of Appeals of California, as well as the Court of Appeals of New York. No
need, therefore, to reopen the hearing and receive such decisions as evidence.

2. FORENSIC PRACTICE; SENTECIAS OF COURTS OF AMERICA; JUGED THING. - The

plaintiff in the present case had already obtained judgment in their favor in the Philippines
(Slade Perkins against Perkins, 57 Jur Fil, 215..) Which states that, as a husband should own
and manage 24,000 shares in the company sued. But for reasons only he knows, went to the
Supreme Court of New York and there, as the first cause of action, I raise again the same
question, and as a second cause of action, he was the sole owner of these shares. The Court of
Appeal of New York decided that such actions with all dividends were the exclusive propieda his
wife. It declares: That when the applicant acudio the New York Court to litigate again on the
possession and propieded of certi︎cates of shares in question, I leave the decision to the Court
of the Philippines, I renunciano rights granted to it; if he had obtained a favorable decision, it is
clear that v be satisfied would force the other party to the fulfilled; desobedcerla today allow the
applicant, only because it is contrary to its interests, it is subverting all sense of justice,
especially as he was the actor, the plaintiff in the second action. you should not be allowed
today challenging the sentence against an issue that promoted; to litigate for the third time by
the possession and ownership of such share certificates with their dividends and to be granted
another sentence also equal to that obtained in the Court of the Philippines, which then
abandoned; could promote and even fourth leading cause other subsequent while not get
sentecia to your satisfaction. Other jurisdictions maintain the same criteria. (235 SW, 473) The
court decision not wake Penelope which is woven and unwoven for entertainment party. The
rule prevents the multiplicity of actions is imposed.

3. ID .; ID .; ID.;. - In the case of New York and in the present case no identity of stuff: 24,000
shares and dividends; there is identity of causes because the plaintiff claims in both ownership
and possession; no identity in people because the plaintiff in both cases is the same husband
and the main defendant is his wife; and there is also identity in the quality with which they were
the plaintiff and the defendant claim as owner of the shares. It was decided in the first cause
24,000 shares and dividends were the property of the wife demanded. The plaintiff husband
contends that the company that issued these shares have not been party to the case of New
York and therefore has no derech to invoke the decision rendered it as double jeopardy. It
declares: The objection of res judicata takes effect in the present case, where litigates for the
third time ownership of these shares. The contention that the company had not taken part in the
cause in New York is irrelevant, because that company does not claim any adverse claim on the
shares: it is only a trustee of dividends and their duty is chargeable to the person entitled to
them, according to court decision. (Bernhard against Bank of America, 2nd Pac 122, 892.; it is
only a trustee of dividends and their duty is chargeable to the person entitled to them, according
to court decision. (Bernhard against Bank of America, 2nd Pac 122, 892.; it is only a trustee of
dividends and their duty is chargeable to the person entitled to them, according to court
decision. (Bernhard against Bank of America, 2nd Pac 122, 892.;

4. ID .; ID .; ID .; ID .; ID .; - The lawsuit filed by the plaintiff in New York was to another base
promoted by his wife in Califonia that he was not a party. In this case, contends the complainant
that the decision of the Court of Califonia does not require it because it was not party to the
dispute, relying on the doctrine that a party should not private being of their rights without due
process or without opportunity to be heard. It declares: That the plaintiff having promoted the
cause in New York, the decision constitutes res judicata it and hurts. (Judgment of the Supreme
Court of Spain of December 26, 1879, 42 Civ Jur, 494, sentecia of the same court of 15 June
1899, 87 Civ Jur, 497;.... Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi Co. Cola Co., Atl 172, 260;. Donato against
Mendoza, 25 Jur Fil, 58,.. Peñalosa against Tuason, 22 Phil. Rep., 309). Existte res judicata "-
law the new was action as embedded in the first, or were inseparable consequence of it: thus
dismissed the petecion a condueño course claiming co-ownership is denied, it makes sense
that no can then bringing proceedings to order the division of the common thing. " (8 Manresa,
4th ed., 535.)

5. CORPORACIONES; Share certificates; DIVIDENDS. - There may be no law requiring a

corporation to pagardos times and two different people the dividends of the same action.

6. SENTENCE; EFFECT OF FOREIGN sentecia A COURT AGAINST A DECISION OF THE

COURT IN THE PHILIPPINES. - The doctrine of Coke (Coke on Littleton, 3255) "that there are
two with Where︎Judgments icting on a claim or demand. . . The two Judgments neutralize each
other and Both parties May Assert Their claims anew, "is not applicable to the present case the
litigants, whether natural, and foreigners must repetar decisions of the courts of the Philippines;.
But if you chose to go to a foreign court, requesting an incompatible remedy withthe provision of
the sentence also obtained in the Philippines and from obtaining an adverse decision, should
not be allowed to later repudiate that of the foreign court and asked compliance with the
decision of the court of the Philippines that they had abandoned. allowing that way is contrary to
the order and public interest in the Philippines because pertuba the orderly administration of the
law.

7. ID .; INITIATION OF NEW BUSINESS ABROAD, LEAVING THE COURT DECISION OF

PHILIPPINE. - "One who subjects himself to the jurisdiction of a Court, even Where I would not
be subject to suit Otherwise, subject to any valid Becomes Asserted claim against him Directly
Relating to the subject matter of His Initiated proceeding voluntarily." (Hoxsey vs. Hoffpauir, 180
F. 2d 84).

8. ID .; ID .; NOT APPLICABLE AGAINST THE MATTER QUERUBIN QUERUBIN (L- 3693). -

the doctrine is inapplicable against Cherub Cherub (L- 3693, July 29, 1950) in this case. In this
case, the decision of the Court of New York has not been obtained by Ms. Perkins behind the
plaintiff.; to the contrary, that decision was made under the lawsuit filed by Mr. Perkins; He was
the actor, the initiator of the cause was discussed for the second time owned 24,000 shares
and, leaving the decision of the Court of Manila, requested that such actions were declared their
exclusive property. After a hearing in which the parties had had ample opportunity to be heard,
gave a judgment declaring the sa Ms. Perkins owns the shares. This sentence is nal between
the two.

9. ID .; ID .; DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE EXECUTION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT

interposing SAME AS DEFENDING "RES-JUDICATA". - Do not confuse the execution of a
foreign judgment with the exception of res judicata. There is a difference between asking
Philippines enforcement of a foreign decision (enforcement of foreign judgment) and present the
defense of res judicata. Sort the fulfillment of a foreign judgment involves direct act of
sovereignty; recognize the res judicata only exception involved a sense of justice; Hence,
Articles 14 and 48-A of Rule 39, does not have that mediated special performance for the
exception of res judicata was accepted as required by Article 47, which was repealed by
resolution of August 9, 1946 . The reason is simple; not the execution of res judicata is
requested as the fulfillment of a foreign decision is sought; only it occurs as a defense against
an action.

10. CORPORACIONES; DIVIDENDS; WHO IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME. - Dividends are

accessories of the shares, as interest continues to the capital. The owner of the shares is the
owner of the dividend and is the one to receive them, unless provided otherwise.

PAUL J p:

It is not easy to understand the present case no idea of the various causes that preceded it.

Unsuccessful negotiations between Mr. Eugene Arthur Perkins and his wife Idonah Slade
Perkins on the friendly partition of the community property, she I present demand on June 30,
1930 in the Court of First Instance of Manila, asking for the settlement thereof and of which half
being awarded with their products.

In response, Mr. Perkins argued that the goods listed in the seventh paragraph of demand were
gananciales and in counterclaims and counterclaims, the plaintiff alleged that he unlawfully
deprived of owning and managing a large part of the community property, requested that the
applicant surrender account of those goods that were in his possession and that he trans riese
and surrender all property that could be incurred. In the 30 days after the suit was filed ten
lawsuits were filed with countless motions. The applicant his lawyer's office, retirement claims
against her husband as presented in the cause of liquidation of community property and asked:

"(A) to be allowed to withdraw his claim, and

"(B) That judgment in favor of the defendant under its counterclaim, as it is sought in these
proceedings, all, however, subject to the pronouncement appropriate by the Court on the merits
of any motion that this pending before it for adjudication. " (.. Against Perkins Perkins Slade, 57
Jur Fil 215) On 4 August 1930 the Court, agreeing to the request of the parties, ruling the matter
saying in part:

... "Dismissal of the lawsuit, authorizing the applicant to withdraw its application, and
condemning the applicant to accountable to the defendant of the marital assets that are in the
possession or under the control of the applicant; cndenando the applicant to assign, transfer
and deliver to the defendant all marital assets that may result from such accountability, and to
grant in favor of the defendant all documents and writings that were necessary for proof of legal
title to the defendant on such property. " (Slade Perkins against Perkins, supra).

On September 17, 1930 Mr. Perkins filed a motion asking the appearance of his wife to manifest
the reasons that ought not condemned for contempt for disobeying the judgment. On 26
December 1930 the Ms. Perkins I file a complaint against her husband begging for food. On
January 15, 1931, five months and eleven days after sentencing in the first case, she requested
the revocation of the sentence, based on Article 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the motion
was dismissed on 6 March. On March 30 the same year Mrs. Perkins was convicted of
contempt of court and his detention was ordered in jail until he has served the orders in Case
August 4.

Against the order denying the motion to revoke the sentence for fraud and desacto decision, the
Ms. Perkins appeal, and both were confirmed by the Court on September 12, 1932. (Perkins
against Perkins, supra).

The Court stated that Ms. Perkins guilty of laches had been made (negligence) in presenting his
motion to set aside the judgment, for not having submitted within a reasonable time.; that their
allegations of fraud and fraud perpetrated against her by her husband were not true; that the
access to his request amounted to enable change its cause of action; the judgment of 4 August
1930 had become final for not being appealed; so I denied the motion requesting the annulment
of the judgment.

Being held in jail for contempt of court, Ms. Perkins presented to the Court a request for habeas
corpus, claiming that his arrest was illegal and calling for the stand in freedom. his request was
denied and again referral was ordered to prison subject to the orders of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, which had issued the sentence for contempt. (Idonah Perkins Slade against
the Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. Rep., 292).

On August 8, 1933 Mr. Perkins filed a lawsuit before the Supreme Court of New York against
Idonah Perkins Slade and Guaranty Trust Company of New York, alleging, among other things,
that he was entitled to own and manage, being goods gananciales under the laws of the
Philippines, 24,000 shares of Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., issued on behalf of Idonah
Perkins Slade and were in the custody of the Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, and asked him to
surrender such certificates shares and dividends.

The defendant Guaranty Trust Company alleged that he had no interest in such shares and if
the certificates were in his possession was because Mrs. Perkins had deposited for safekeeping
in October 1930, and was willing to meet what will remember the court.

. Ms. Perkins son complained of a general denial and I submit, as a special defense that she
was the owner of 24,000 shares of Benguet Consolidated Mining Company; the decision of the
Court of the Philippines in favor of the plaintiff on such shares had been obtained by fraud and
therefore void. She asked to be declared owner of those 24,000 shares.

judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and, on appeal, the Court of Appeal of New York,
on May 25, 1937, whose operative part dictate decision is worded as follows:

"The matter is remitted to the Special Term With directions to make the findings erroneously
refused and enter a decree adjudging That the assignment dated July 25, 1930, is null and void
and That it be returned to defendant Perkins, That Idonah Slade Perkins is the absolute owner
of the stock in question Together with all dividends thereon, That plaintiff return to defendant
Perkins the deposit receipt for the certificates and deliver to her any substitute certificates
received by him therefor With suitable indorsement or assignment, That the defendant trust
company deliver the certificates to her, and That the plaintiff account for and pay over to her all
dividends received by him and Increase on account of the 24,000 shares of stock and proceed
with accounting therefor,and for other or additional Such as relief May be Necessary to Afford
her complete relief in Accordance With This decision, with costs to appellant in all courts.

"The judgment of the Appellate Division and That of the Special Term Should be reversed and
directed judgment for the appellant defendant- in Accordance With This review, with costs in all
courts." (8 NE [2d], 849, 858).

The appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States has been abandoned.

On July 6, 1938 the lawsuit was filed in the present case (Civil Cause No. 53317 of the Court of
First Instance of Manila), asking the applicant Mr Perkins sentence was passed ordering the
defendant Benguet Consolidated Mining Company to pay the dividends previously declared on
52.874 shares on behalf riding to P71,379.90 as well as future dividends in future be declared
by the company and the Benguet recognize him as the person who has control and mastery
over these shares .

On 29 August 1938 the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company submitted its reply, in which he
acknowledged the important allegations of the complaint, arguing that if it had suspended
payment of dividends to the plaintiff, it was because his wife had also claimed payment the
same dividends; he had no interest in the dividends and was willing to pay the authorized
person by the court to receive them. The next day Benguet filed a motion asking that Mrs.
Perkins was included as part and that the plaintiff, Mr. Perkins, is ordered by the court to amend
its demand in this regard, and that would make the corresponding location.

In September 1938 the applicant filed its amended complaint and asked to do by publishing the
site to the new demand. The Mrs. Perkins, through his lawyer, appeared and asked for lack of
jurisdiction of the court, demand would dismiss. The petition was denied on February 21, 1939,
as well as the motion for reconsideration, on 31 March the same year. The Mrs. Perkins,
through his lawyer, brought an action for certiorari before the Court, which was denied on 16
November 1939. (69 Phil., 186).

George H. Engelhard, the third defendant was included in the lawsuit by order of the court, to
have a lien on some actions, appeared on 16 August 1945, and announced its intention to
waive such claim; Therefore, the court, in its order of September 1945, dismissed the lawsuit
against.

On January 6, 1940, the Ms. Perkins filed its answer to the amended complaint, and then the
substituted a "Contestacion amended, with Special Defenses and Counterclaims," in which he
argued that the decision of the Court of Appeal of the State New York became part of their
writing constitutes res adjudicata on all issues raised by the complainant. This, as I submit
replies that that decision was void of any value or effect and should not be recognized in the
Philippines.

The hearing of the case began on July 23, 1940 and lasted until January 21, 1941. Mr. Perkins
and Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., presented their respective tests. The Mrs. Perkins,
through his lawyer, declined to present evidence. The allowed Court that Mr. Perkins present
evidence to support its contention that the Court of Appeal of the State of New York lacked
jurisdiction and that the ruling of the Supreme Court of the State and County of New York had
been obtained by fraud. On November 4, 1940, while the applicant was subject to cross-
examination by counsel for Ms. defendant. Perkins, this came from the United States and, on
the same day, personally appeared in court and accused his lawyer have since in collusion with
the opposing party; but I consider judged unfounded accusation. However, Mr. Alva Hill
resigned as attorney Ms. Perkins and since then she personally took care of his business. For
his disorderly conduct, the court suspended on 30 January 1941 in sight, and ordered Mr.
Perkins actions that might establish guardianship over the person and property of Idonah
Perkins Slade for their ability to run their own affairs. While those proceedings were pending
guardianship, she escaped despite the warning from the court not to do so; I was leaving the
Philippines without naming a proxy or leaving a person that would represent in their affairs. the
court suspended on 30 January 1941 in sight, and ordered Mr. Perkins actions that might
establish guardianship over the person and property of Idonah Perkins Slade for their ability to
run their own affairs. While those proceedings were pending guardianship, she escaped despite
the warning from the court not to do so; I was leaving the Philippines without naming a proxy or
leaving a person that would represent in their affairs. the court suspended on 30 January 1941
in sight, and ordered Mr. Perkins actions that might establish guardianship over the person and
property of Idonah Perkins Slade for their ability to run their own affairs. While those
proceedings were pending guardianship, she escaped despite the warning from the court not to
do so; I was leaving the Philippines without naming a proxy or leaving a person that would
represent in their affairs.

During the years of the Japanese occupation they were not acting causes. Meanwhile, Ms.
Perkins litigating against Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. in California, getting your deposited
funds place liens on a bench.

On November 30, 1942, the Court of Appeal that state, deciding the case on appeal, said in
part:

That plaintiff was the owner of the stock in question here and Entitled to all Declared dividends
thereon. Perkins vs. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, 274 NY 250, 8 NE (2d) 849. The trial
court held the New York That judgment was res judicata, That defendant, WHO was not a party
to That action, was conclusively bound thereby, and That under the full faith and credit clause of
the courts must give effect esta State thereto. IT THEREFORE Entered judgment for plaintiff in
the overall sum of $ 412,273.88, Which includes the amount of all cash dividends Declared by
defendant on the block of stock in question Between March 31, 1930, and March 31, 1940,
PLUST interest from the dates DECLARED. "(132 Pac. [2d], 70). The trial court held the New
York That judgment was res judicata, That defendant, WHO was not a party to That action, was
conclusively bound thereby, and That under the full faith and credit clause of the courts must
give effect esta State thereto. IT THEREFORE Entered judgment for plaintiff in the overall sum
of $ 412,273.88, Which includes the amount of all cash dividends Declared by defendant on the
block of stock in question Between March 31, 1930, and March 31, 1940, PLUST interest from
the dates DECLARED. "(132 Pac. [2d], 70). The trial court held the New York That judgment
was res judicata, That defendant, WHO was not a party to That action, was conclusively bound
thereby, and That under the full faith and credit clause of the courts must give effect esta State
thereto. IT THEREFORE Entered judgment for plaintiff in the overall sum of $ 412,273.88,
Which includes the amount of all cash dividends Declared by defendant on the block of stock in
question Between March 31, 1930, and March 31, 1940, PLUST interest from the dates
DECLARED. "(132 Pac. [2d], 70).

After careful consideration of various errors attributed to the lower court, the Court of Appeal
concluded:

"From what has heretofore Been Said, it follows That, except as to the item of interest on
dividends Declared since May 26, 1937, the trial court has properly disposed of all issues
Involved In This Case." (Id. P. 101).

On the occasion of the taking of Manila, the record of this case was destroyed; in July 1945 the
court ordered the parties to that reconstituyesen, and on 27 December the same year was
declared reconstituted.

On 27 March 1946 the Court of Manila issued a requiring either party order desire to present
further testing that would make within 60 days from the date of the order, and within that period,
would be considered under the cause for his decision. As none of the parties present additional
evidence, the applicant filed an ex-parte motion asking the court decides the case.

On 25 April 1947 the Court issued a ruling, whose operative part is as follows:
"(1) That the plaintiff Eugene Arthur Perkins, as the manager of the conjugal partnership
Between himself and the defendant Idonah Slade Perkins, is the only person entitled to the
possession, control, and disposal of all shares of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company,
standing in His name in the books of Said defendant company, the 52.874 shares of Particularly
heretofore Mentioned stock, and any stock dividend Declared thereon, Including the right to
receive the dividends thereon heretofore Declared in amount of P71,379.90, as well as
dividends Such as have Been Declared and hereafter shall be payable made on Said shares,
while the same holds have;

"(2) That the defendant Benguet Consolidated Mining Company Recognize the ownership, title
and right of disposal of the plaintiff and to the HEREIN in 52.874 shares of Its stock, and pay
him the amount of P71,379.90, being the Declared dividends on Said shares Including interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum from July 6, 1938, and pay to Said plaintiff any and
all dividends heretofore Declared and made payable on Said shares or Which May hereafter be
Declared and made payable thereon, while I have to Continues hold the same; and, "(. R. on Ap
pp 91-93.)

On May 28, 1947, the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company introduced motion for a new
founded on the discovery of new evidence, namely the copy of the decision of the Court of
Appeal of California, (Ex. A of the motion). Not yet solved this motion, the Benguet Consolidated
Mining Company filed another motion asking the opening of the trial, claiming that forgetfulness,
error and negligence (Rule 38), did not present as evidence the decision of the Court of Appeals
of New York (8 NE [2d] 849) and of the District Court of Appeals of the State of California. (132
Pac. [2d] 70). The two motions were denied, and Benguet Consolidated Mining Company
appeals (a) against the decision and (b) against the order denying the reopening of the trial.

This Court has judicial notice of those decisions. No need, therefore, to reopen the hearing and
receive such decisions as evidence. (Rule 123, Art. 5).

The plaintiff in the present case had already obtained judgment in his favor against Perkins
Perkins Slade, 57 Jur Fil, 215..; that as a husband should own and manage 24,000 shares of
Benguet Consolidated Mining Company; but, for reasons only he knows, went to the Supreme
Court of New York and there, as the first reason I raise action again the same question, and as
a second cause of action, he was the sole owner of these shares.

"The second cause of action - says the Court of Appeal of New York - is in conversion and
opens up the question of title in and ownership of the stock de novo without reliance upon legal
proceedings in the Philippines Plaintiff seeks to decree upon the merits. That is the true and
have lawful owner of the certi cates in question, That the certificates of stock be delivered to
him, and That the defendants account for and pay over to him all dividends received by them. "
(Perkins v. Guaranty Trust Company of New York, supra).

The Court of Appeal decided that such actions with all dividends were the exclusive property of
the defendant Idonah Perkins Slade. When the applicant acudio the New York Court to litigate
again on the possession and ownership of the share certificates of Benguet, left the decision of
the Court of the Philippines, renouncing the rights awarded to it; if he had obtained a favorable
decision, it is clear that he would be satisfied and would force the other party to the fulfilled;
disobeying today allow the applicant, only because it is contrary to its interests, it is subverting
all sense of justice, especially as he was the actor, the plaintiff in the second action. you should
not be allowed today to challenge the judgment against an issue that promoted; to litigate for the
third time by the possession and ownership of such share certificates with their dividends and to
be granted another sentence equal to that obtained in the Court of the Philippines, which then
abandoned; could promote and even fourth leading cause other subsequent while not obtain
judgment to your satisfaction. Other jurisdictions maintain the same criteria.

"Where city as plaintiff was successful in ITS ejectment suit for possession of land, but while
appeal was pending Elected to identical assert cause of action as a counterclaim in quiet title
suit by defendants, the election constituted an abandonment of rights Which city ADH acquired
in the judgment in the ejectment suit. " (City of Caruthersvile v. Cantrell, 241 SS [2d] 790).

"... The parties are THEREFORE in the anomalous position of Having two Judgments on the
issues same, one in behalf of plaintiff and one against him. This condition was Brought About by
the action of plaintiff. We think That the doctrine of election Applies , and the bringing of the
second suit on the issues same was an abandonment of all rights under the first suit and
judgment. Plaintiff Having Elected to Pursue His remedy by a second suit, I ought not to be
permitted after judgment has-been rendered against him to return to the first and assert rights
thereunder Inconsistent With the course I Pursued in the bringing of the second suit. " (235 SW,
473).

The ruling is not Penelope fabric that weaves and unravels to entertainment party. The rule
prevents the multiplicity of actions is imposed.

The plaintiff contends that the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company was not a party in the
cause of New York and, therefore, is not entitled to invoke the decision rendered it as double
jeopardy.

Article 1252 of the Civil Code provides that "the presumption of res judicata effect in another
trial, it is necessary that between the resolved case by the judgment and that in which this is
invoked, concur the most perfect identity between things, the causes, people of litigants and the
quality with which they were. "

In the case of New York and in the present case no identity of stuff: 24,000 shares and
dividends; no identity of causes, because the plaintiff claims in both ownership and possession;
no identity in people because the plaintiff in both cases is Mr. Perkins and the main defendant is
Ms. Perkins.; and there is also identity in the quality with which they were because the plaintiff
and the defendant as owners demanding action. He had declared that the first cause 24,000
shares and dividends were the property of Mrs. Perkins. The jeopardy takes effect, therefore, in
the present case, where litigated third time property of such actions.

The contention that the Benguet had not taken part in the cause in New York unimportant
because Benguet does not claim any adverse claim on the shares: it is only a trustee of
dividends and their duty is chargeable to the person entitled to them, according to court
decision. Resolved the ownership of 24,000 shares to be understood necessarily resolved the
secondary question: who is to pay dividends. It is clear that should not be paid which was
defeated at trial. In Case of New York there is no need to make this conclusion because forced
expressly pleaded that Ms. Perkins owns 24,000 shares and dividends.

Bernhard against Bank of America (122 Pac. [2d] 892), Helen Bernhard, as the second
manager testamentary of finada Clara Sather, demand presented against Bank of America to
collect a deposit of the deceased, claiming that this not he had authorized its withdrawal. At the
end of his administration, I lasted several years, Cook, named the first administrator of the
estate of Sather nada, I present an account against which Helen Bernhard, Beaulah Bernhard,
Hester Burton and Iva Ledoux, beneficiaries of the will to oppose the finada Sather. After the
corresponding view probate court approved the bill, and the approval order stated that in life, the
late Clara Cook Sather had donated to the amount of your deposit in question. The California
Supreme Court declared that when Helen Bernhard and the other Co-beneficiary of the will
opposed the approval Cook's account, also represented the testamentary; to the deposit was
resolved that the ownership of Cook, because he donated the finada Clara Sather, they were
obliged to respect the decision; and that the defense of res judicata relied upon by the Bank of
America was good against Helen Bernhard demand, as administrator of the assets of Clara
Sather.

Bank of America has not taken part in the adoption of the Cook administrator account, nor take
part in Benguet dispute over the ownership of shares and dividends in the courts of New York;
but as the court testamentary had already decided that the warehouse was owned by Cook,
necessarily, as a necessary consequence, Helen Bernhard and Co-beneficiary could not claim
from the Bank of America: it was not fair that the Bank should pay first deposit of the deceased
to Cook and his legatees later. By similarity, the applicant can not now claim the Benguet
payment of dividends on shares that she had already paid to the true owner, Ms. Perkins.

we pass not unnoticed containment of the applicant that the decision of the Court of California
does not require it because it was not party to the dispute, relying on the doctrine that a party
should not private being of their rights without due or without trial a chance to be heard.
Unfortunately, the plaintiff is not in such a situation, because it was the one who promoted the
cause in New York and issued her decision was based on that of the Court of California.

The Supreme Court of Spain on December 26, 1879, said. "That if it is true that the law 20, tit 22
of heading 3.a, establishes the general rule that res judicata does not harm people who do not
involved in the trial, so is unexceptional cases where these people exercise the same action for
the same purpose, invoke the same rights and base their claims on the same titles, so that the
legal situation of the parties is identical one and another trial. " (42 Jur. Civ., 494). The
applicants in the first case are not the same applicants in the second, but another; However, the
decision made in the first case in which the plaintiff did not take part in the second case, res
judicata and is impaired.

On another occasion the same court declared: "That the doctrine whereby so you can estimate
the exception of res judicata must be given set so the three identities of people, things and
actions, absolutely nothing undermines the law also established and by which it is estimated
that there legally identity of people when litigating in the second exercise the same action
lawsuit that was brought in the first, invokes the same foundations and supports his claim on the
same titles. " (Judgment of 15 June 1899, 87 Jur. Civ., 497). The intervenor in the second
lawsuit has not taken part in the first; however, he harms the decision rendered in the previous
case.

There res judicata "when the new action was as embedded in the first or were inseparable
consequence of it: thus dismissed the petition of a co-owner of course claiming co-ownership is
denied, it is logical that one who could then bring proceedings to order the division of the
common thing. " (8 Manresa, 4th ed., 535)

In Coca-Cola Co. vs. . Pepsi-Cola Co., Atl 172, 260, stated:

"The present plaintiff, against Whom the res judicata is pleaded is Alleged to Have Been the
unsuccessful plaintiff in the former proceedings Where the issues Were Alleged to Have Been
identical With Those here involved. We are not now passing upon the actual existence, as a
fact, of the identity of the issues in the two proceedings, for That identity must be proven. But
Assuming the identity of the issues, we are of the feedback That a plaintiff WHO deliberately
selects His forum and there unsuccessfully presents His proofs, is bound by Such adverse
judgment in a second suit Involving all the identical Already DECIDED issues. The requirement
of mutuality must yield to public policy. to hold would be to allow Otherwise Repeated litigation
of identical questions, Expressly adjudicated,and to allow a litigant Having lost on a question of
fact to re-open and to re-try the old issues each time I can Obtain a new adversary not in privity
With His former one. "

The cases cited show that Spanish and Anglo-Saxon's jurisprudence and the decisions of this
Court in the affairs of Donato against Mendoza, 25 Phil. Rep., 58, and Peñalosa against
Tuason, 22 Phil. Rep., 309, expanded instead of restrict the application of the doctrine of res
judicata, for the purpose of preventing high as required public interest that issues are settled
twice.

If under the decision of the Court of Appeal of New York, the California Court of Appeal run
P1,190,245.93 of funds Benguet, have you ever allow again, despite the exception of res
judicata raised by the defendant, the plaintiff litigates for the third time over the ownership of the
same actions and dividends?

Many Authorities include as a basis of res judicata maxim nemo debet the subordinate bis pro
vexari one o'clock ET eadem cause - no one ought to be twice vexed for the same cause and
one. . . . "(Coca-Cola Co. vs. Pepsi-Cola Co., supra).

There can be no law requiring a mining corporation to pay twice because two different people
the dividends of the same action.

refusing the order reopening the view (case No. L-1982) and results confirmed demand is
dismissed with costs against the applicant (Case No. L-1981).

Paras, Pres., Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Juice, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., Concur.

PAUL, M .:

RESOLUTION

The applicant seeks reconsideration of the decision arguing that did not leave the sentence that
he had obtained in the case filed in the Courts of Manila, because he had gone to New York to
ask precisely execute that judgment. The motion for reconsideration says:

"The only purpose of His New York last action was to enforce His Philippine judgment...." (P.
12.)

xxx xxx xxx

May 28, 1954

"All that plaintiff Sought by His complaint in the New York suit was to enforce end the judgment
of the Philippine courts, by securing the return of the certificates, the ownership of Which HAD
Already Been Said Determined by the judgment,...
"Plaintiff, in pursuing the New York suit, far from the intention of Abandoning Having the rights
under the Philippine Granted him Judgments, Sought to enforce them,..." (Pp. 13-14.)

The amended lawsuit filed in New York speaks for itself. Contains two causes of action: first, the
alleged plaintiff facts that led to a decision is dictated on their behalf by the courts of the
Philippines which stated that 24,000 shares of Benguet Consolidated Mining Company were
community property of the plaintiff and his wife, and not the exclusive property of Mrs. Perkins;
in which he ordered to surrender the account of marital property that were in his possession and
that surrender to the plaintiff; and, rather than comply with that judgment, she fled from the
Philippines and deposit the shares held by the Guaranty Trust Company of New York. As a
second cause of action, the plaintiff alleges facts that tend to establish that 24,

"Wherefore, This judgment against the plaintiff Demands defendants:

"1. Adjudging and declaring the plaintiff to be the true HEREIN and lawful owner of Said
certificates numbered 1484, 1595, 2176, 2238, 2773, 2780 and 2781 of stock of the Benguet
Consolidated Mining Company Said."

2. Permanently enjoining and restraining the defendants Said, and each of them, from
delivering, transferring or assigning Said twenty-four thousand (24,000) shares of Benguet
Consolidated Mining Company stock to any other person except to the plaintiff HEREIN.

"3. Said Directing the defendants, and each of them, to deliver to the plaintiff HEREIN Said the
twenty-four thousand (24,000) shares of Benguet Consolidated Mining Company stock.

"4. Requiring the defendants Said, and each of them, to account to the plaintiff and to pay
HEREIN over to Said plaintiff any and all dividends Which Have Been or May be received by
either of them upon twenty-four thousand Said (24,000) Benguet Consolidated Mining shares of
Company stock, and for the costs and disbursements of this action, any Together with other and
further relief as to the Court May deem just and proper. " (Exhibit A-64, pp. 20-21.)

As seen, the plaintiff did not ask the delivery, as husband or administrator of marital property, of
24,000 shares; did not ask to be ordered to Mrs. Perkins and Guaranty Trust Co. to deliver the
shares in compliance with the judgment of the Court of Manila asked what was (1) to be
declared legal owner of 24,000 shares of Benguet Consolidated Mining Company; (2) to prohibit
the respondents to deliver or transfer them to any person; (3) that the same shares were
delivered to the (indubitably as owner and not as an administrator); and (4) that the defendants
give account of dividends on such shares.

According to the first cause of action and the decision obtained by the plaintiff in Manila, the
only condueño was 24,000 shares, or owner of half of them, with the right to own them all as
marital property manager. When asked in his amended complaint that he was declared owner of
24,000 shares, necessarily abandon the sentence stating that such actions were community
property; to ask to be declared the legal owner of the shares, reopened litigation over the
ownership of these shares, considering useless and void the decision of the courts of Manila.
The said decision abandonment is evident; He asked that he be declared the owner of 24,000
shares, instead of asking which is ordered by the Court of New York on compliance and
enforcement of the judgment that he had obtained in the Philippines. The same with its
amended complaint again raising the ownership of shares, undid that decision, implicitly asked
revoked so that he could get from the New York Court a decision declaring legal owner of the
shares. Or these actions are gananciales, or are the exclusive property of the plaintiff: they can
not be gananciales and the same time the exclusive property of the plaintiff. If they are
gananciales, they can not be the plaintiff, and if they are their exclusive property, then rejected,
or at least denied the validity of the decision of the courts of the Philippines: was holding then
that was the owner only of 24,000 shares. If the object of the applicant's go to court in New York
was only able to get possession of the shares, "the ownership of Which HAD Already Been
Determined by Said judgment" (Philippines), why you did not ask so in demand amended
instead of asking to be declared owner of the same? If there were no amended lawsuit in New
York the plaintiff asked more than compliance with the decision of the Court of Manila, without
raising again the question of ownership of the shares and the Court of New York had issued a
decision contrary to the of the Court of the Philippines, the Court probably would not hesitate to
not honor this new decision and would enforce the first. And if Mrs. Perkins, unbeknownst to her
husband, claiming ownership of the shares in New York,

Is good to note that the amended complaint was not signed by the applicant or by his lawyers in
the Philippines, but by his lawyers in America, Messrs. Platt, Taylor & Walker, but the
performance of these obliges.

A decision of this Court that, in part, reads as invoked:

"... We believe that this Court should not enforce a decision given by a foreign court decree,
which violates our laws and sound principles of morality that inform our social structure on
family relationships.

xxx xxx xxx

"The judgments of foreign courts can not be enforced in the Philippines if they are contrary to
law, morals and public order. If such decisions by the simple theory of reciprocity, comity and
international urbanity are based su ciente for our courts decide on the basis of the same, then
our courts would be in poor position of having to make judgments contrary to our laws, customs
and public order. This is absurd. " (Cherubin against Cherubin, 47 Off. Gaz., (Supp. 12, 315.).

By this doctrine the applicant maintains that the decision of New York should not be recognized
in the Philippines.

There is confusion as to the similarity of the two cases. In Case cherubic the following events
occurred: Silvestre Cherub, Filipino, and Margaret Cherubin, American, married in America and
had a daughter named Querubina; wife because he committed adultery, the husband asked for
a divorce; It was awarded the corresponding decree entrusting the custody of the child. Later
wife married the man she had committed adultery, had a daughter and then welcomed to a
protected and claiming it had enough resources to keep the legal daughter and protected, the
wife filed for custody of his daughter Querubina when Cherubim and her daughter were no
longer in Los Angeles because they had come to the Philippines; the Supreme Court of Los
Angeles, California, granted it, ordering the father to pass a monthly pension of $ 30 to
Querubina. The present wife in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, a habeas corpus seeking custody of the child,
basing his claim on the second decree of the Court of California in which he had been granted
custody of the child. This Court does not reconcio the decree because it was contrary to
morality and law; because "the child would be under the care of his mother who was judicially
convicted of spousal in delidad, would live together under one roof with the man who
dishonored his mother and his father offended." He is basing his claim on the second decree of
the Court of California in which he had been granted custody of the child. This Court does not
reconcio the decree because it was contrary to morality and law; because "the child would be
under the care of his mother who was judicially convicted of spousal in delidad, would live
together under one roof with the man who dishonored his mother and his father offended." He is
basing his claim on the second decree of the Court of California in which he had been granted
custody of the child. This Court does not reconcio the decree because it was contrary to
morality and law; because "the child would be under the care of his mother who was judicially
convicted of spousal in delidad, would live together under one roof with the man who
dishonored his mother and his father offended."

Custody of minor children in the Philippines is entrusted to the innocent spouse; For this reason,
the Court, in deciding the writ of habeas corpus appeal, disregarded the decree of the Court of
California.

In this case, the decision of the Court of New York has not been obtained by Ms. Perkins behind
the plaintiff.; to the contrary, that decision was made under the lawsuit filed by Mr. Perkins; He
was the actor, the initiator of the cause was discussed for the second time owned 24,000 shares
and, leaving the decision of the Court of Manila, requested that such actions were declared their
exclusive property. After a hearing in which the parties had had ample opportunity to be heard,
declaring judgment was given to Ms. Perkins owns the shares. This sentence is nal between
the two. The plaintiff is not entitled to challenge that decision handed down in a case initiated by
the Court of New York in them, plaintiff and defendant are citizens.

Assuming that the New York Court had decided that 24.0000 shares were the exclusive
property of the plaintiff, and Ms. Perkins had come to the Philippines to judicially demand the
partition of these 24,000 shares are community property, Had he paved the applicant may
demand partition? Undoubtedly not; He would have argued as a defense of res judicata the
decision of the Court of New York in which he declared sole owner of 24,000 shares; It would
have argued that the New York court had jurisdiction over the litigious thing; would not have
allowed the decision of the Court of Manila was recognized. Precisely he asked to be declared
owner of the 24,000 shares that did not agree that such actions were only gananciales: his
interest then was to obtain a judgment inconsistent with that of the Court of the Philippines. And
now that the decision does not favor the plaintiff but to Ms. Perkins, why that decision does not
constitute adjudicata res and must be zero, because the New York court has no jurisdiction over
the litigious matter, and the decision of the Court of New York should have no value in the
Philippines? For the plaintiff the Court of New York has jurisdiction if the judgment is favorable,
but not if it is contrary. It is inconsistent theory of the applicant and inconsistent, untenable. that
the New York court has no jurisdiction over the litigious matter, and that the decision of the
Court of New York should have no value in the Philippines? For the plaintiff the Court of New
York has jurisdiction if the judgment is favorable, but not if it is contrary. It is inconsistent theory
of the applicant and inconsistent, untenable. that the New York court has no jurisdiction over the
litigious matter, and that the decision of the Court of New York should have no value in the
Philippines? For the plaintiff the Court of New York has jurisdiction if the judgment is favorable,
but not if it is contrary. It is inconsistent theory of the applicant and inconsistent, untenable.

"One who subjects himself to the jurisdiction of a court, even Where I would not be subject to
suit Otherwise, subject to any valid Becomes Asserted claim against him Directly Relating to the
subject matter of His Initiated proceeding voluntarily." (Hoxsey vs. Hoffpauir, 84. 180 F. 2d)

"It does not lie in the mouth of one Affirmed Who has the jurisdiction of a court in a private
matter, to accomplish a purpose, to afterward deny jurisdiction to escape Such penalty."
(Littleton vs. Burgess, 16 LRA [NS] 49, 16 Wyo. 58, 91 Pac. 832.)
"To permit one to invoke the exercise of a jurisdiction Within the overall powers of a court and
Then to reverse ITS orders upon the ground That It had no jurisdiction would be to allow one to
trifie With the courts. The principle is one of estoppel in the interest of a sound administration of
the laws... closes the mouth of the complainant. " (Spence et ux. Vs. State Nat. Bank of El Paso
et to the., SW 5 (2d), 754.) (Commission of Appeals of Texas, Sec. B, May 2, 1928.)

The Contendings complainant that the decision of the Court of New York has no effect as
adjudicata res in the Philippines because Manresa says "As foreign judgments, more important
every day, should be addressed to the rules for their implementation, which relates firmness, it
contains procedural law, distinguishing various cases which it regulates, and not attributing res
judicata effect of the judgment until it has authorized its execution. " (8 Manresa, 531.)

The Spanish Civil Procedure Act is not in force in the Philippines. Instead this Rule 39, Article
44, which provides:

"The effect of a judgment or order nales issued by a court or judge of the Philippines or the
United States or of any state or territory of the United States, which has jurisdiction to make
such judgment or order may be as follows: ... (b) in other cases, the judgment so rendered is,
regarding the material on which I fell, conclusive between the parties and their successors for
subsequent title to the start of action or special performance, litigate thereon thing under the
same title and the same capacity. "

And Article 48 (a) dealing with the effect of judgments abroad, says:

"If the judgment be upon a certain thing, it shall be conclusive as to the title thereof;"

It is not necessary, according thereof that for the exception of res judicata, consisting of a
foreign decision, can oppose successfully in the Philippines, has brokered a judgment admitting
that decision.

Do not confuse the execution of a foreign judgment with the exception of res judicata. There is a
difference between asking Philippines enforcement of a foreign decision (enforcement of foreign
judgment) and present the defense of res judicata. Ordener meeting a foreign judgment involves
direct act of sovereignty; recognize the res judicata only exception involved a sense of justice;
Hence the article 44, Rule 39, no special performance that mediated the exception that res
judicata was accepted as required by Rule 47.

The procedure to request enforcement of a foreign decision is not the same in the following
countries: In the Philippines, before the repeal by this Court in its decision of August 9, 1946, of
Article 47 of Rule 39, was as follows:

"The effect of a court record of a court of the United States, or one of its States or territories, is
in the Philippines the same as in the United States or the State or territory which was
transacted, just, to have force here, it is necessary that mediated a special judgment or action to
affect. " (Art. 47, Rule 39.)

A lack of procedures previously established, we believe so that you can ask for enforcement of
a foreign decision in the Philippines, should present an action based on it.

the justice or injustice of the plaintiff's claim will not be reviewed. The above system is derived
from the principle of the equality of all states, and Rests upon the basic assumption That the
Judgments of other states are entitledto full trust and confidence. As in the case of domestic
Judgments, a foreign judgment so far as ITS merits are concerned, absolute imports verity. - an
irrebuttable presumption being created in behalf of Its inherent fairness and injustice "

The French doctrine Rests upon an assumption diametrically Opposed to That underlying the
Italian system, and emphasizes the fact That while the different states of the civilized world are
in theory equal and Entitled to the same respect, Their courts do not whos inspire the same
degree of Their confidence in regard to decisions. It takes notice of the fact That the Judges of
Certain Countries are less competent than others and are Those of sometimes not free from
bias against defendants Belonging to a foreign country. Under These Circumstances it is felt to
be the duty of a state, before the execution of foreign Allowing Judgments Within ITS territory, to
ascertain Whether the foreign judgment was fair and just. " and emphasizes the fact That while
the different states of the civilized world are in theory equal and Entitled to the same respect,
whos Their courts do not inspire the same degree of confidence in regard to Their decisions. It
takes notice of the fact That the Judges of Certain Countries are less competent than others
and are Those of sometimes not free from bias against defendants Belonging to a foreign
country. Under These Circumstances it is felt to be the duty of a state, before the execution of
foreign Allowing Judgments Within ITS territory, to ascertain Whether the foreign judgment was
fair and just. " and emphasizes the fact That while the different states of the civilized world are in
theory equal and Entitled to the same respect, whos Their courts do not inspire the same
degree of confidence in regard to Their decisions. It takes notice of the fact That the Judges of
Certain Countries are less competent than others and are Those of sometimes not free from
bias against defendants Belonging to a foreign country. Under These Circumstances it is felt to
be the duty of a state, before the execution of foreign Allowing Judgments Within ITS territory, to
ascertain Whether the foreign judgment was fair and just. " It takes notice of the fact That the
Judges of Certain Countries are less competent than others and are Those of sometimes not
free from bias against defendants Belonging to a foreign country. Under These Circumstances it
is felt to be the duty of a state, before the execution of foreign Allowing Judgments Within ITS
territory, to ascertain Whether the foreign judgment was fair and just. " It takes notice of the fact
That the Judges of Certain Countries are less competent than others and are Those of
sometimes not free from bias against defendants Belonging to a foreign country. Under These
Circumstances it is felt to be the duty of a state, before the execution of foreign Allowing
Judgments Within ITS territory, to ascertain Whether the foreign judgment was fair and just. "

as does the former Italian law, in exceptional cases for it will try the merits of the case over
again. The law Appears to be established in England That May be impeached Foreign
Judgments if procured by false and fraudulent representations and testimony of the plaintiff,
even if the same question of fraud was presented to and by the foreign court DECIDED. Such
fraud May be shown, Although it can not be done without a retrial of the case. The object of
retrial Such is not, however, to show That the foreign court came to a wrong conclusion, but it
was fraudulently That misled into coming to a wrong conclusion. Courts of equity May enjoin the
enforcement of Judgments, domestic or foreign, If They Have Been procured through fraud,
accident, mistake or surprise. "(Yale Law Journal 29, 194-199.) for in exceptional cases it will try
the merits of the case over again. The law Appears to be established in England That May be
impeached Foreign Judgments if procured by false and fraudulent representations and
testimony of the plaintiff, even if the same question of fraud was presented to and by the foreign
court DECIDED. Such fraud May be shown, Although it can not be done without a retrial of the
case. The object of retrial Such is not, however, to show That the foreign court came to a wrong
conclusion, but it was fraudulently That misled into coming to a wrong conclusion. Courts of
equity May enjoin the enforcement of Judgments, domestic or foreign, If They Have Been
procured through fraud, accident, mistake or surprise. "(Yale Law Journal 29, 194-199.) for in
exceptional cases it will try the merits of the case over again. The law Appears to be established
in England That May be impeached Foreign Judgments if procured by false and fraudulent
representations and testimony of the plaintiff, even if the same question of fraud was presented
to and by the foreign court DECIDED. Such fraud May be shown, Although it can not be done
without a retrial of the case. The object of retrial Such is not, however, to show That the foreign
court came to a wrong conclusion, but it was fraudulently That misled into coming to a wrong
conclusion. Courts of equity May enjoin the enforcement of Judgments, domestic or foreign, If
They Have Been procured through fraud, accident, mistake or surprise. "(Yale Law Journal 29,
194-199.) The law Appears to be established in England That May be impeached Foreign
Judgments if procured by false and fraudulent representations and testimony of the plaintiff,
even if the same question of fraud was presented to and by the foreign court DECIDED. Such
fraud May be shown, Although it can not be done without a retrial of the case. The object of
retrial Such is not, however, to show That the foreign court came to a wrong conclusion, but it
was fraudulently That misled into coming to a wrong conclusion. Courts of equity May enjoin the
enforcement of Judgments, domestic or foreign, If They Have Been procured through fraud,
accident, mistake or surprise. "(Yale Law Journal 29, 194-199.) The law Appears to be
established in England That May be impeached Foreign Judgments if procured by false and
fraudulent representations and testimony of the plaintiff, even if the same question of fraud was
presented to and by the foreign court DECIDED. Such fraud May be shown, Although it can not
be done without a retrial of the case. The object of retrial Such is not, however, to show That the
foreign court came to a wrong conclusion, but it was fraudulently That misled into coming to a
wrong conclusion. Courts of equity May enjoin the enforcement of Judgments, domestic or
foreign, If They Have Been procured through fraud, accident, mistake or surprise. "(Yale Law
Journal 29, 194-199.) even if the same question of fraud was presented to and by the foreign
court DECIDED. Such fraud May be shown, Although it can not be done without a retrial of the
case. The object of retrial Such is not, however, to show That the foreign court came to a wrong
conclusion, but it was fraudulently That misled into coming to a wrong conclusion. Courts of
equity May enjoin the enforcement of Judgments, domestic or foreign, If They Have Been
procured through fraud, accident, mistake or surprise. "(Yale Law Journal 29, 194-199.) even if
the same question of fraud was presented to and by the foreign court DECIDED. Such fraud
May be shown, Although it can not be done without a retrial of the case. The object of retrial
Such is not, however, to show That the foreign court came to a wrong conclusion, but it was
fraudulently That misled into coming to a wrong conclusion. Courts of equity May enjoin the
enforcement of Judgments, domestic or foreign, If They Have Been procured through fraud,
accident, mistake or surprise. "(Yale Law Journal 29, 194-199.)

As for the recognition of foreign decisions as adjudicata beef, several authors argue that,
following the theory of Roman law, a judgment has the nature of a contract or quasi-contract
and that the obligation arising from that judgment when presented as a defense of res judicata It
should be considered as any obligation. "By Submitting the case to the foreign court, the parties
are Deemed, According to this view, To have made an implied agreement That They will abide
by the decision of the court. The obligation Arising from the judgment is Referred, Therefore, to
the will of the parties rather than being derived from the sovereign power Directly of the foreign
state. " (29 Yale Law Journal, 190.)

In the Philippines it is not necessary to theorize that Articles 44 and 48 (a) of Rule 39 are clear:
do not require special hava mediated action on the foreign decision for her to take effect as a
defense of res judicata. The reason is simple: not the execution of res adjudicata calls as the
fulfillment of a foreign decision is sought; only it occurs as a defense against an action. Now if
be requested by Ms. Perkins payment in the Philippines dividend of 24.000 shares of Benguet
Consolidated Mining Co., then it is no longer enough simply displaying the decision of the Court
of New York. It is essential she file the corresponding action in court competent to order a
reasoned judgment of the Court in New York.

If he had plaintiff obtained judgment in their favor in its application asking to be declared sole
owner of 24,000 shares, he would have sustained America, the Philippines and elsewhere that
that decision was valid: but as he was adverse, argued today this causes said decision is null
and void and has no effect jeopardy. Litigants, whether natural and foreign, they must respect
the decisions of the courts of the Philippines; but if you chose to go to a foreign court,
requesting an incompatible remedy the disposition of the judgment obtained in the Philippines
and from obtaining an adverse decision, they should not be allowed to later repudiate that of the
foreign court and asked compliance with the decision of the court Philippines that they had
abandoned.

The errors attributed to the Court of New York had been resolved by the Supreme Court of the
United States if the plaintiff had not abandoned his appeal.

The complainant requests that the following applies Coke doctrine: "That Where there are two
conflicting Judgments on a claim or demand, there is an estoppel against an estoppel Which
'setteth the matter at large.' Code on Littleton, 325. The two Judgments neutralize each other
and Their Both parties assert claims ANEW May. " Without deciding whether this doctrine
should be adopted or not in this jurisdiction, we can say that it is not applicable to this case. The
petitoria part of the amended complaint is as follows:

That defendant Benguet Consolidated Mining Company be required and ordered to Recognize
the right of the plaintiff to the monitoring and disposal of shares Said so standing in His name, to
the exclusion of all others; That the additional defendants Idonah Perkins Slade and George H.
Engelhard each be held to have no interest or claim in the subject matter of the plaintiff and
defendant Between controversy, Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, or in or under the
judgment to be rendered HEREIN and That by the judgment Said they, and each of them, be
excluded therefrom; and That the plaintiff be Awarded the costs of esta suit and General Relief.
" Engelhard be each held to have no interest or claim in the subject matter of the controversy
Between plaintiff and defendant, Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, or in or under the
judgment to be rendered HEREIN and That by the Said judgment they, and each of them, be
excluded therefrom; and That the plaintiff be Awarded the costs of esta suit and General Relief.
" Engelhard be each held to have no interest or claim in the subject matter of the controversy
Between plaintiff and defendant, Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, or in or under the
judgment to be rendered HEREIN and That by the Said judgment they, and each of them, be
excluded therefrom; and That the plaintiff be Awarded the costs of esta suit and General Relief.
"

The applicant did not ask to be declared owner of 24,000 shares: only ask for payment by the
Benguet Consolidated Mining Company of dividends due and not paid and dividends that fall
due, and does not express that concept is to receive dividends, if as marital property manager
or as absolute master. Dividends are accessories of the shares, as interest continues to the
capital. The owner of the shares is the owner of the dividend and is the one to receive them,
unless provided otherwise. As the ownership of 24,000 shares and has been duly determined
by the Court of New York, to precisely instance of the plaintiff, dividends must be paid to the
owner declared. Dividends due on such shares, amounting to P1,019,245.92 had already been
satisfied, execution, in California, and not by voluntary act of the defendant. The same dividends
should not be paid to another presona, especially the plaintiff who was defeated on the question
of the property. The dismissal of the claim is well founded.