REPORT

ONENFORCEME
NT OF FOREIGN
JUDGMENT,
CHOICE OF
LAW, and
JURISDICTION

Submitted by:

ASTIVE, KiaCAMBALIZA,
TzarleneRABUTAZO,
ZymondRICAPLAZA, Dana
DenisseSANTIAGIO,
EmilySUMAGUE, Abigael
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

 Foreign judgment – all decisions rendered outside the forum and encompasses
judgments, decrees and orders of court of foreign countries as well as those of
sister states in a federal system of government

 Theories that Justify the Application of the Foreign Law

o The Theory of comity
 No foreign law would be allowed to operate in another state except
by “the comity of nations”
o The Vested-rights theory
 Our courts enforce not the foreign law or foreign judgment but the
right or rights that have been vested under such law or judgment.
Rights once acquired under a foreign law or judgment should be
enforced regardless of where the suit for its enforcement was filed
o The Theory of local law
 We apply a foreign law not because it is foreign, but because our
own law by applying a similar rule requires us to do so; hence, it is
as if the foreign law has become part of our own internal or
domestic law
o The theory of harmony of laws
 Identical or similar problems should be given identical or similar
solutions thus resulting in harmony of laws
o The Theory of Justice
 Since the purpose of all laws, including Conflict of Laws, is the
dispensation of justice, the proper foreign law should be applied in
order to attain this objective.

 Sources of Law
o Sec. 48, Rule 39, 1977 Rules on Civil Procedure
 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.
  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.
o Art. 8 of the Civil Code
 Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines

 Limitation period for enforcement of a foreign judgment

o A foreign judgment merely gives rise to a right of action (see question 3).
Under article 1144(3) of the Civil Code, an action upon a judgment must
be brought within 10 years ‘from the time the right of action accrues’. The
provision applies to local and foreign judgments because it does not make
any distinction between the two (Mijares v Ranada, 455 SCRA 397 (2005),
in which the Supreme Court ruled that ‘[w]here the law does not
distinguish, we shall not distinguish’).
o The right of action commences to run from the date of finality of the
foreign judgment (PNB v Bondoc, 14 SCRA 770 (1965)).
o The foreign law becomes relevant if it provides for a shorter period (ie,
less than 10 years) of limitation (see Salonga, Private International Law,
p554 (1995)). If the foreign law is not proven, Philippine courts will apply
Philippine law, and assume that the foreign law is similar to Philippine law
under the doctrine of processual presumption (Industrial Personnel &
Management Services, Inc v De Vera 785 SCRA 563, 582 (2016)).

 Type of Enforceable order

o Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court does not limit the foreign
judgment, whether in an action in rem or in personam, to a particular type.
Therefore, any remedy ordered by a foreign court may be enforceable in
the Philippines.
o There is a requirement that the judgment be final, interim injunctions will
not be enforceable.

 Competent Courts
o The regional trial court has jurisdiction over cases seeking enforcement of
foreign judgments (section 19(6), Blg 129 of the Batas Pambansa or the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended).

 Procedure of Enforcement
a. Petition should be filed in the proper court attaching an authenticated copy
of the foreign judgment to be enforced
b. The decision of the regional trial court may be appealed all the way to the
Supreme Court,
 c. Thereafter, a motion for execution under section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court will be filed in the regional trial court upon finality of the local
judgment recognizing the foreign judgment.
d. Once the motion has been granted, the Philippine court shall issue the writ
of execution requiring the court’s sheriff or other proper officer to enforce
the writ according to its terms (section 8, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).

 Defenses to liability or to the scope of the award entered in the foreign

jurisdiction
a. want of jurisdiction
b. want of notice to the party
c. collusion
d. fraud
e. clear mistake of law or fact
f. contrary to public policy

 Conditions or Requirements before a local court in the Philippine can

enforce or recognize a foreign judgment
a. There must be adequate proof of foreign judgment
b. The judgment must be on a civil or commercial matter, not on a criminal,
revenue, or administrative matter
c. There must be no lack of jurisdiction, no want of notice, no collusion, no
clear mistake of law or fact (Rule 39, Sec. 48, 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure)
 NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC v. COURT OF APPEALS and
C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC.
o FACTS:
 An International Passenger Sales Agency Agreement was
entered into by plaintiff NORTHWEST and defendant SHARP,
through its Japan branch, whereby NORTHWEST authorizes
SHARP to sell the former’s airline tickets
 SHARP failed to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales it made
on behalf of NORTHWEST under the agreement which led the
latter to sue in Tokyo for collection of the unremitted amount,
with claim for damages
 Tokyo District Court of Japan issued a writ of summons
against SHARP at its office in Yokohama, Japan but the bailiff
failed twice to serve the writs. Finally, the Tokyo District Court
decided to have the writs of summons served at SHARP’s
head office in Manila.
 SHARP accepted the writs but despite such receipt, if failed to
appear at the hearings.
 District Court proceeded to hear the complaint and rendered
judgment ordering SHARP to pay NORTHWEST the sum of
83,158,195 Yes plus damages
 SHARP failed to appeal and the judgment became final and
executory
 NORTHWEST failed to execute the decision in Japan, hence,
it filed a suit for enforcement of the judgment before the RTC
of Manila.
 SHARP filed its answer averring that the judgment of the
Japanese Court is null and void and unenforceable in this
jurisdiction having been rendered without due and proper
notice to SHARP
 RTC held that the foreign judgment in the Japanese Court
sought to be enforced is null and void for want of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant
 CA sustained the judgment of RTC, holding that the process of
the court has no extraterritorial effect and no jurisdiction was
acquired over the person of the defendant by serving him
beyond the boundaries of the state
o HELD:
 A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the
country from which it comes, until the contrary is shown. It is
also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and
the giving of due notice therein.
 Being the party challenging the judgment rendered by the
Japanese court, SHARP had the duty to demonstrate the
invalidity of such judgment.
 It is settled that matters of remedy and procedure such as
those relating to the service of process upon a defendant are
governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum. 8 In
this case, it is the procedural law of Japan where the judgment
was rendered that determines the validity of the extraterritorial
service of process on SHARP. As to what this law is a
question of fact, not of law.
 It was then incumbent upon SHARP to present evidence as to
what that Japanese procedural law is and to show that under
it, the assailed extraterritorial service is invalid. It did not.
Accordingly, the presumption of validity and regularity of the
service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered by
the Japanese court must stand.
 Alternatively in the light of the absence of proof regarding
Japanese law, the presumption of identity or similarity or the
so-called processual presumption may be invoked. Applying it,
 the Japanese law on the matter is presumed to be similar with
the Philippine law on service of summons on a private foreign
corporation doing business in the Philippines.
 Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the
defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the
Philippines, service may be made: (1) on its resident agent
designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, (2) if
there is no such resident agent, on the government official
designated by law to that effect; or (3) on any of its officers or
agents within the Philippines.
 Where the corporation has no such agent, service shall be
made on the government official designated by law, to wit: (a)
the Insurance Commissioner in the case of a foreign insurance
company; (b) the Superintendent of Banks, in the case of a
foreign banking corporation; and (c) the Securities and
Exchange Commission, in the case of other foreign
corporations duly licensed to do business in the Philippines.
 Nowhere in its pleadings did SHARP profess to having had a
resident agent authorized to receive court processes in Japan.
 While it may be true that service could have been made upon
any of the officers or agents of SHARP at its three other
branches in Japan, the availability of such a recourse would
not preclude service upon the proper government official, as
stated above.
 As found by the respondent court, two attempts at service
were made at SHARP’s Yokohama branch. Both were
unsuccessful.
 The Tokyo District Court requested the Supreme Court of
Japan to cause the delivery of the summons and other legal
documents to the Philippines. Acting on that request, the
Supreme Court of Japan sent the summons together with the
other legal documents to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Japan which, in turn, forwarded the same to the Japanese
Embassy in Manila . Thereafter, the court processes were
delivered to the Ministry (now Department) of Foreign Affairs
of the Philippines, then to the Executive Judge of the Court of
First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila, who
forthwith ordered Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit to serve the
same on SHARP at its principal office in Manila. This service
is equivalent to service on the proper government official
under Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, in relation to
Section 128 of the Corporation Code. Hence, SHARP’s
 contention that such manner of service is not valid under
Philippine laws holds no water.
 We find NORTHWEST’s claim for attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and exemplary damages to be without merit. We
find no evidence that would justify an award for attorney’s fees
and litigation expenses under Article 2208 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines. Nor is an award for exemplary damages
warranted.
 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is partly GRANTED, and
the challenged decision is AFFIRMED
d. The foreign judgment must not contravene a sound and established public
policy of the forum
e. The judgment must be final and executory
 QUERUBIN v. QUERUBIN
o FACTS:
 Silvestre Querubin, a Filipino, married petitioner Margaret
Querubin, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. They had a daughter,
Querubina
 Margaret filed for divorce alleging mental cruelty
 Silvestre filed a countersuit for divorce alleging Margaret’s
infidelity
 Superior Court of Los Angeles granted the divorce and
awarded “joint custody” of the child. Quirubina was to be kept
in a neutral home subject to reasonable visits by both parties.
Both parents were restrained from takin Querubina out of
California without the permission of the Court
 Custody was granted to Silvestre under an interlocutory
decree (although the child was still kept in the neutral home)
because at the time of the trial, Margaret was living with
another man
 Upon Margaret’s petition, the interlocutory decree was
modified. Since she had then married the mad she was living
with and had a stable home, the Court granted custody to
Margaret with reasonable limitations on the part of the father
 Silvestre, together with Querubina, left San Francisco and
went to the Philippines, with the intent of protecting the child
from the effects of her mother’s scandalous conduct. He
wanted the child to be raised in a better environment
 Margaret, though counsel, presented to the CFI a petition for
habeas corpus for the custody of Querubina under the
interlocutory decree of the California Court. She claims that
under Art. 48 of Rule 39, the decree of the Los Angeles Court,
 granting her child’s custody, must be complied within the
Philippines
o HELD:
 The decree is by no means final. It is subject to change with
the circumstances. The first decree awarded the custody of
the child to the father, prohibiting the mother from taking the
child to Margaret’s home because of her adulterous
relationship with another man. The decree was amended
when Margaret was not in Los Angeles.
 Because the decree is interlocutory, it cannot be implemented
in the Philippines. Where the judgment is merely interlocutory,
the determination of the question by the Court which rendered
it did not settle and adjudge finally the rights of the parties.
 In the case at bar, the circumstances have changed.
Querubina is not in Los Angeles, she is in the Philippines
under her father’s care. It is a long way from one place to the
other. Neither can Margaret prove that she can pay the cost of
passage for the minor. Neither can she answer for
Querubina’s support, care and education. In comparison, the
father has shown both interest in the child and capacity to
provide for the needs of the child
f. The judgment must be valid under the laws of the court that rendered it
 PEMBERTO V. HUGHES
o FACTS:
 Summons served on Mrs. Pemberto in Florida, gave her only
9 days instead of the statutory 10, to make her appearance
 Pemberto asserted that the decree was invalid and not entitled
to recognition
o HELD:
 Since “no substantial justice, according to English nations is
offended, all that English Court look to is the finality of the
judgment and the jurisdiction of the Court…namely, its
competence to entertain the sort of case which it deal with,
and its competence to require the defendant to appear before
it”
 Since Florida Court was competent and no substantial
injustice was committed, the English Court did not consider
the error in procedure to significantly alter an otherwise valid
decree

 Modern Developments in Enforcement

o The Hague Conference on Private International Law
  The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters, established the
condition and prerequisites under which the contracting states
would recognized and enforce each other’s judgment
 Provisions on applicability of the Convention “irrespective of the
nationality of the parties” and non-refusal for the sole reason that
the court of the State of origin has applied a law other than that
which would have been applicable according to the rules of private
international law of the State addressed
 Addressed the question of whether a default judgment is subject to
enforcement and establishes recognition and enforcement
procedures
 The Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters 1971.
o EEC Convention of 1968
o Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act

References:
Coquia & Aguiling-Pangalangan. (2000) CONFLICTS OF LAWS Cases, Materials and
Comments.
Sempio-Diy, A. (2004) Handbook on CONFLICTS OF LAWS.
Aguilar, N. (2013) 2013 Edition CONFLICT OF LAWS.
Ongkiko, Jacoba, & Flores. (2018) Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. Available at:
https://gettingthedealthrough.com/area/46/jurisdiction/111/enforcement-foreign-
judgments-philippines/