Leo Artemio A.

Puertos
Chapter IV Digest

1. Nagarmull vs. Binalbagan

G.R. No. L-22470

FACTS:

The plaintiff Soorajmull Nagarmull, a foreign corporation from India agreed to sell to defendant, a
domestic corporation 1,700,000 pieces of Hessian bags at $26.20 per 100 bags, C.I.F. Iloilo. Thereafter,
plaintiff sued Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. for the enforcement of the Tribunal Arbitration
ordering the latter to pay the increased export taxes imposed by the Indian Government on the
shipments of jute sacks. Thereafter, Binalbagan refused to pay. It claimed that it is not bound by the
decision of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and consequently not obligated to pay the claim in
question.

ISSUE: WON the decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce is
enforceable in the Philippines.

RULING:

No, it is true that under the provisions of Section 50 of Rule 39, Rules of Court, a judgment for a sum of
money rendered by a foreign court "is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title", but when suit for its enforcement is brought in a Philippine
court, said judgment "may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law  or fact

Upon the facts of record, we are constrained to hold that the decision sought to be enforced was
rendered upon a "clear mistake of law" and because of that it makes appellant - an innocent party -
suffer the consequences of the default  or breach of contract committed by appellee. V
2. Northwest Orient v. Court of Appeals
GR 112573

Facts:

Northwest Airlines and defendant C.F. Sharp & Company, through its Japan branch, entered into an
International Passenger Sales Agency Agreement, where the former authorized the latter to sell its air
transportation tickets. C.F Sharp and Company was unable to remit the proceeds of ticket sales made in
behalf of Northwest which prompted the latter to sue CF Sharp in Tokyo, Japan for the collection of the
unremitted proceeds of the ticket sales with claim for damages. 

The writ of summons was issued by the District Court of Japan at the defendant’s office, to the head of
office in Manila through diplomatic channels to the defendant’s head office in Manila. However, despite
receipt of such summons, the defendant failed to appear on the scheduled hearings. Thus, the Tokyo
Court proceeded to hear the complaint and rendered judgment ordering the defendants to pay the
amount of unremitted proceeds plus damages for delay.  The judgment was not appealed; hence, it
became final and executory. However, petitioner was unable to execute the decision in Japan, hence, it
filed a suit for enforcement of judgment before the RTC.

The defendants filed an answer contending that judgment on a Japanese Court is unenforceable in this
jurisdiction having been rendered without proper notice to the defendant

Issue: WON the judgment rendered by the Japanese Court be enforced

Ruling:

YES, a foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until
the contrary is shown. The judgment may, however, be assailed by evidence of want of jurisdiction,
want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Under Section 3 of Rule 131,
a court, whether of the Philippines or elsewhere, enjoys the presumption that it was acting in the lawful
exercise of jurisdiction and has regularly performed its official duty. Consequently, the party attacking a
foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity.
Here, nowhere in its pleadings did SHARP profess to having had a resident agent authorized to receive
court processes in Japan. This silence could only mean, or least create an impression, that it had none.
Hence, service on the designated government official or on any of SHARP's officers or agents in Japan
could be availed of.

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 of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, then to the Executive Judge of the Court of
First Instance 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. 
3. Philsec Investment v. Court of Appeals
GR. 103493

Facts:

Private respondent Ducat obtained separate loans from petitioners Ayala and Philsec which were
secured by shares of stocks owned by him. In order to facilitate the payment of the loans, private
respondent assumed Ducat’s obligation under an agreement by which it sold to petitioner Athona
Holdings a parcel of land in the USA while Philsec and Ayala extended a loan to Athona as initial
payment of the purchase price.

The balance was to be paid by means of a promissory note executed by Athona. Athona failed to pay
Accordingly, 1488 Inc. sued petitioners in the United States for the payment of the balance and for
damages.

Issue: WON the principle of forum non conveniens is applicable.

Ruling:

No, First, a motion to dismiss is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, which does not include   forum non
conveniens.  The propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination,
hence, it is more properly considered a matter of defense.

Second, while it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this
ground, it should do so only after "vital facts are established, to determine whether special
circumstances" require the court's desistance. 

In this case, the trial court abstained from taking jurisdiction solely on the basis of the pleadings filed by
private respondents in connection with the motion to dismiss. It failed to consider that one of the
plaintiffs (PHILSEC) is a domestic corporation and one of the defendants (Ventura Ducat) is a Filipino,
and that it was the extinguishment of the latter's debt which was the object of the transaction under
litigation. The trial court arbitrarily dismissed the case even after finding that Ducat was not a party in
the U.S. case.
4. Asiavest v. Court of Appeals
GR 128803

Facts:

The private respondent in this case Heras incurred liability as a guarantor after the debtor failed to pay
the petitioner Asiavest amounting to $3,300.00 as ordered by a court in Hongkong. During the
proceedings in Hongkong, the service of summons was done through extra territorial service by which
the petitioner sent it through Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez and Gatmaitan Law Firm commissioned in
Manila to the residence of Heras. When the summons were served, Heras already left Hongkong and
settled in the Philippines for good because of business.

Asiavest now filed a petition in the RTC to enforce the award against private respondents rendered by
the Hongkong Court which was granted by the trial court.

ISSUE: WON the Hong Kong Judgment is enforceable in the Philippines

Ruling:

Yes,under paragraph (b) of Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a foreign judgment against a
person rendered by a court having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is presumptive evidence of a
right as between the parties and their successors in interest by the subsequent title. However, the
judgment may be repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion,
fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

Hence, once the authenticity of the foreign judgment is proved, the burden to repel it on grounds
provided for in paragraph (b) of Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is on the party challenging the
foreign judgment. Here, Heras admitted the existence of the Hong Kong judgment. On the other hand,
ASIAVEST presented evidence to prove rendition, existence, and authentication of the judgment by the
proper officials. 
5. Philippine Aluminum v. FASGI
G.R. No. 137378

Facts:

In 1978, FASGI, a corporation organized in California, USA, entered into a distributorship arrangement
with Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Incorporated (“PAWI”), a Philippine corporation, and Fratelli Pedrini
Sarezzo an Italian corporation. The agreement provided for the purchase, importation and
distributorship in the United States of aluminium wheels manufactured by PAWI. FASGI then paid but
unfortunately, FASGI later found the shipment to be defective.

Thereafter, FASGI instituted an action against PAWI and FPS for breach of contract and recovery of
damages before the US District Court of California. Unable to obtain satisfaction of the final judgment
within the United States, FASGI filed a complaint for “enforcement of foreign judgment”, before RTC
Makati. The trial court dismissed the case. While the assailed foreign judgment ordered the return by
PAWI of the purchase amount, no similar order was made requiring FASGI to return to PAWI the third
and fourth containers of wheels. This situation amounted to an unjust enrichment on the part of FASGI.
Furthermore, the RTC ruled, agreements which the California court had based its judgment on were
nullity.

ISSUE: WON the Philippine Court can enforce the foreign judgment.
 
RULING:

Yes, a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar as the immediate parties
and the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is convincingly shown that there has been
an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction; that trial upon regular
proceedings has been conducted, following due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant and
under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice; and that there is
nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and in the system of laws under which it is sitting or fraud
in procuring the judgment. 

Here, PAWI claims that its counsel, Mr. Ready, has acted without its authority. Verily, in this jurisdiction,
it is clear that an attorney cannot, without a client’s authorization, settle the action or subject matter of
the litigation even when he honestly believes that such a settlement will best serve his client’s interest.
However, PAWI failed to substantiate this complaint with sufficient evidence. Hence, the foreign
judgment must be enforced.

In fine, intrinsic fraud, that is, fraud which goes to the very existence of the cause of action – such as
fraud in obtaining the consent to a contract – is deemed already adjudged, and it, therefore, cannot
militate against the recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment.
6. St. Aviation v. Grand Air
GR. 140288

Facts:

The Petitioner St. Aviation Services, a foreign corporation based in Singapore, is engaged in the
manufacture, repair and maintenance of airplanes and aircrafts. While, the respondent Grand
International Airways, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in airline operations.
Petitioner and respondent executed an "Agreement for the Maintenance and Modification of one of its
Aircraft. The parties agreed that the petitioner will repair and undertake maintenance works on
respondent's other aircraft, and that the works shall be based on terms similar to those of their First
Agreement.

The petitioner billed respondent but despite the former's repeated demands, respondent failed to pay.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a case with the High Court of the Republic of Singapore against the
respondent. The court issued a Writ of Summons to be served extraterritorially upon respondent. To
effect the service, the court sought the assistance of the sheriff of Pasay City.
However, despite receipt of summons, the respondent failed to answer the claim causing the Singapore
High Court to render judgment by default against the respondent. However, respondent filed a Motion
to Dismiss the Petition citing that the Singapore High Court did not acquire jurisdiction over its person. 

Issue: WON the judgment of the Singapore Court is enforceable in the Philippines. 

Ruling:

Yes, the jurisdiction was acquired by the Singapore High Court over its person. Hence, the judgment of
default rendered by that court against respondent is valid and is enforceable in the Philippines. 

In addition, the conditions for the recognition of and enforcement of a foreign judgment in our legal
system are contained in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, as amended, to wit:

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

In view of the foregoing rule, a foreign judgment or order against a person is merely presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties. It may be repelled, among others, by want of jurisdiction of
the issuing authority or by want of notice to the party against whom it is enforced. The party attacking a
feign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity. 
7. Korea Technologies v. Lerma
GR. 143581

Facts:

The petitioner is a Korean corporation while private respondent PGSMC is a domestic corporation. They
executed a Contract in the Philippines whereby petitioner would set up an LPG Cylinder Manufacturing
Plant in Carmona, Cavite. The contract and its amendment stipulated that KOGIES will ship the
machinery and facilities necessary. Subsequently, the machineries, equipment, and facilities for the
manufacture of LPG cylinders were shipped, delivered, and installed in the Carmona plant. 

Thereafter, PGSMC encountered financial difficulties affecting the supply of materials, thus forcing the
parties to agree that the petitioner would be deemed to have completely complied with the terms and
conditions of the contract. For the remaining balance for the installation and initial operation of the
plant PGSMC issued two postdated checks. When the petitioner deposited the checks, these were
dishonored.

PGSMC informed the petitioner that PGSMC was canceling their Contract. Petitioner wrote PGSMC
informing the latter that PGSMC could not unilaterally rescind their contract nor dismantle and transfer
the machineries and equipment on mere imagined violations by KOGIES. It also insisted that their
disputes should be settled by arbitration as agreed upon in Article 15, the arbitration clause of their
contract.

Issue: WON the foreign arbitral award is enforceable in the Philippines

Ruling:

No, in domestic arbitration proceedings, we have particular agencies to arbitrate disputes arising from
contractual relations. In case a foreign arbitral body is chosen by the parties, the arbitration rules of our
domestic arbitration bodies would not be applied.  As signatory to the Arbitration Rules of the UNCITRAL
Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in the New York Convention, the Philippines committed itself to be bound by the
Model Law. We have even incorporated the Model Law in Republic Act No. (RA) 9285, otherwise known
as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004.

Foreign arbitral awards while mutually stipulated by the parties in the arbitration clause to be final and
binding are not immediately enforceable or cannot be implemented immediately.
8. Corpus v. Sto. Tomas
GR. 18657111

Facts:

The petitioner was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship. He married Daisylyn T.
Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City. Petitioner left for Canada soon after the wedding. When he
returned to the Philippines he was shocked to discover that his wife was having an affair with another
man. Thereafter, the petitioner returned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce. The Superior
Court of Justice, Windsor, Ontario, Canada granted petitioners’ petition for divorce. The divorce
decree took effect a month later.

Two years after the divorce, the petitioner wanted to marry his new Filipina fiance in the Philippines.
He went to the Pasig City Civil Registry Office and registered the Canadian divorce decree. Despite the
registration of the divorce decree, an official of the NSO informed petitioner that the marriage
between him and respondent still subsists under Philippine law; to be enforceable, the foreign
divorce decree must first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration
of marriage as dissolved with no opposition from respondent. The trial court denied the petition.  It
ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy, under the second paragraph of Article 26
of the Family Code, in order for him or her to be able to remarry under Philippine law. 

Issue:  WON aliens can file a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce.

Ruling: No. The unavailability of the 2nd paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not
necessarily strip such aliens of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign
divorce decree. The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the
acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. The
foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together
with the alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or
herself. The recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or in another
action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.

Here, since both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien, recognizing his or her
capacity to obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of a sovereign authority, Section 24, Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court comes into play. This Section requires proof, either by (1) official publications or (2)
copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents. If the copies of official records are
not kept in the Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper
diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which
the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

The records show that petitioner attached to his petition a copy of the divorce decree, as well as the
required certificates proving its authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the Canadian law on divorce.
Under this situation, we can, at this point, simply dismiss the petition for insufficiency of supporting
evidence, unless we deem it more appropriate to remand the case to the RTC to determine whether the
divorce decree is consistent with the Canadian divorce law.
9. Landoil v. Al Rabiah
GR. 174720

Facts:

Al Rabiah is a foreign corporation existing under the laws of Kuwait. Defendant Construction
Consortium, Inc. (CCI) and petitioner Landoil are both domestic corporations
CCI and respondent Al Rabiah entered into a Sub-Contract Agreement wherein respondent was assigned
to carry out the electrical works of Kuwait Oil Company's New Industrial Training Centre project in
Ahmadi. As petitioner failed to pay respondent any part of the amount due, together with interest, the
latter referred their dispute to the Commercial Kully Court of Kuwait for arbitration.
Arbitrator rendered its award in favor of the respondent. Respondent then filed with the RTC an action
for the Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Plus Damages against defendant CCI and petitioner. 
Petitioner contends that as appearing in the dispositive portion of the foreign arbitral award, there is
only one defendant adjudged liable to respondent, i.e., Land Oil; thus, the party against whom the Writ
of Execution may be directed. Petitioner claims that it is not the same as Land Oil Resources Company as
its Articles of Incorporation does not indicate any such appellation; that it was not a party to the
proceedings before the foreign arbitrator as it is a different entity. Thus, enforcing an award against a
non-party such as petitioner would be executing on properties owned by a third person other than the
judgment debtor.
ISSUE: WON a foreign judgment may be enforced against a party other than the party decreed
RULING:
Yes, the defendant mainly argues that it was never a party to the subcontract agreement. We find its
argument meritless, because it is now too late for the defendant to claim that the party adjudged liable
under the foreign arbitral award was a different entity.
From the outset of the case, the defendant's stance has always been to deny any participation in the
sub-contract agreement between Construction Consortium Inc. and the plaintiff and, in the alternative,
to bewail the failure of the arbitral award to spell out the factual distinctions between its liability and
that of the Construction Consortium Inc. for they were separate and distinct entities. Thus, this is the
first time that it asserts that it was not the defendant in the case before the Commercial Kully Court of
the State of Kuwait. The defendant thus asserts the existence of a third corporation against whom the
arbitral award was supposedly rendered, Landoil Resources Company (Construction Consortium
Incorporated). Not only is the Court precluded from entertaining such first-time issues but we also
frown upon the apparent self-contradiction.
Indeed, petitioner had never claimed in the RTC that it was not the party referred to in the foreign
arbitral award. On the contrary, petitioner's Answer with Counterclaim filed in the RTC even established
its knowledge and participation in the Sub-Contract Agreement
A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the pleadings; (b) during the trial, either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of the judicial proceeding. It is well-settled that
judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party himself and binds the
person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no
amount of rationalization can offset it.
10. Oil & Natural Gas v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 114323

Facts:

The petitioner is a foreign corporation from India while the private respondent is a domestic
corporation. The present conflict between the petitioner and the private respondent has its roots in a
contract entered into by and between both parties whereby the private respondent undertook to supply
the petitioner 4,300 metric tons of oil well cement.

The oil well cement was loaded on board the ship MV SURUTANA NAVA at the port of Surigao City,
Philippines for delivery at Bombay and Calcutta, India. However, due to a dispute between the
shipowner and the private respondent, the cargo was held up in Bangkok and did not reach its point
destination. Notwithstanding the fact that the private respondent had already received payment and
despite several demands made by the petitioner, the private respondent failed to deliver the oil well
cement. The petitioner then informed the private respondent that it was referring its claim to an
arbitrator pursuant to Clause 16 of their contract.

The chosen arbitrator, one Shri N.N. Malhotra, resolved the dispute in petitioner’s favor setting forth the
arbitral award.

Issue:  WON the foreign judgement can be enforced in the Philippines.

Ruling: 

Yes, the recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is not necessarily affected by the fact that the
procedure in the courts of the country in which such judgment was rendered differs from that of the
courts of the country in which the judgment is relied on.

The SC held that matters of remedy and procedure are governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the
forum. Thus, if under the procedural rules of the Civil Court of Dehra Dun, India, a valid judgment may
be rendered by adopting the arbitrator’s findings, then the same must be accorded respect. In the same
vein, if the procedure in the foreign court mandates that an Order of the Court becomes final and
executory upon failure to pay the necessary docket fees, then the courts in this jurisdiction cannot
invalidate the order of the foreign court simply because our rules provide otherwise.

Here, the private respondent does not deny the fact that it was notified by the foreign court to file its
objections to the petition, and subsequently, to pay legal fees in order for its objections to be given
consideration. Instead of paying the legal fees, however, the private respondent sent a communication
to the foreign court inquiring about the correct amount of fees to be paid.

We cannot subscribe to the private respondent’s claim that the foreign court violated its right to due
process when it failed to reply to its queries nor when the latter rejected its objections for a clearly
meritorious ground. The private respondent was afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. It was not
incumbent upon the foreign court to reply to the private respondent’s written communication.
11. Puyat v. Zabarte
GR. 141536

Facts:

Gil Miguel Puyat, a foreigner, lost a collection suit filed against him by a respondent in California, USA.
Zabarte filed an action to enforce the California judgement here in the Philippines. 

Puyat contended that the California court has no jurisdiction over the case, hence, said foreign decision
was void. He likewise averred that the trial court had no jurisdiction because the issue involved are
partnership matters which are under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Issue: WON jurisdiction over the judgment was vested in the SEC.

Ruling:

No, in the absence of proof of California law on the jurisdiction of courts, the court presumes that such
law is similar to Philippine law. The court based this conclusion on the presumption of identity or
similarity, also known as processual presumption. The Complaint, which respondent filed with the trial
court, was for the enforcement of a foreign judgment. He alleged therein that the action of the foreign
court was for the collection of a sum of money, breach of promissory notes, and damages.

In our jurisdiction, such a case falls under the jurisdiction of civil courts, not of the SEC. The jurisdiction
of the latter is exclusively over matters enumerated in Section 5, PD 902-A, prior to its latest
amendment. If the foreign court did not really have jurisdiction over the case, as petitioner claims, it
would have been very easy for him to show this. Since jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in a
complaint, he only had to submit a copy of the complaint filed with the foreign court. Clearly, this issue
did not warrant trial.
12. Mijares v. Ranada
GR.139325

Facts:

The Petitioners Mijares, et al., suffered human rights violations during the Marcos era, obtained a Final
Judgment in their favor against the Estate of the late Ferdinand Marcos in compensatory and exemplary
damages for tortious violations of international law in the US District Court of Hawaii. This Final
Judgment was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals. As a consequence, Petitioners filed a Complaint
with the Regional Trial Court of Makati for the enforcement of the Final Judgment, where the value of
the subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The Estate of Marcos however, filed a MTD
alleging the non-payment of the correct filing fees. The Regional Trial Court of Makati dismissed the
Complaint stating that the subject matter was capable of pecuniary estimation as it involved a judgment
rendered by a foreign court ordering the payment of a definite sum of money allowing for the easy
determination of the value of the foreign judgment. As such, the proper filing fee was 472 Million
Philippine pesos, which Petitioners had not paid.

Issue: WON the proper filing fee was paid.

Ruling:

Yes, Section 33 of Batasang Pambansa 129 refers to instances wherein the cause of action or subject
matter pertains to an assertion of rights over property or a sum of money. But here, the subject matter
is the foreign judgment itself.

Section 16 of Batasang Pambansa 129 reveals that the complaint for enforcement of judgment even if
capable of pecuniary estimation would fall under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. Thus, the
Complaint to enforce the US District Court judgment is one capable of pecuniary estimations but at the
same time, it is also an action based on judgment against an estate, thus placing it beyond the ambit of
Section 7(a) of Rule 141. What governs the proper computation of the filing fees over Complaints for the
enforcement of foreign judgments is Section7(b)(3), involving “other actions not involving property.”
13. Dacasin v. Dacasin
GR. 168785

Facts:

Petitioner Herald Dacasin, American, and respondent Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin, Filipino, were married
in Manila. In June 1999, respondent sought and obtained from Illinois court a divorce decree against
petitioner. In its ruling, the Illinois court dissolved the marriage of petitioner and respondent.
Thereafter, petitioner and respondent executed in Manila a contract for the joint custody of Stephanie,
their daughter. The parties chose Philippine courts as exclusive forum to adjudicate disputes arising
from the Agreement. Respondent undertook to obtain from the Illinois court an order "relinquishing"
jurisdiction to Philippine courts.
In 2004, petitioner sued respondents in the RTC to enforce the Agreement. Petitioner alleged that in
violation of the Agreement, respondent exercised sole custody over Stephanie. Respondent sought the
dismissal of the complaint for, among others, lack of jurisdiction because of the Illinois court’s retention
of jurisdiction to enforce the divorce decree.

Issue: WON the trial court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of petitioner’s suit and enforce the
Agreement on the joint custody of the parties’ child.

Ruling:
Yes, subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law. At the time petitioner filed his suit in the trial court,
statutory law vests on Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of
pecuniary estimation. An action for specific performance, such as petitioner’s suit to enforce the
Agreement on joint child custody, belongs to this species of actions. Thus, jurisdiction-wise, the
petitioner went to the right court.
Indeed, the trial court’s refusal to entertain the petitioner's suit was grounded not on its lack of power
to do so but on its thinking that the Illinois court’s divorce decree stripped it of jurisdiction. This
conclusion is unfounded. What the Illinois court retained was "jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing
all and sundry the various provisions of [its] Judgment for Dissolution. Petitioner’s suit seeks the
enforcement not of the "various provisions" of the divorce decree but of the post-divorce Agreement on
joint child custody. Thus, the action lies beyond the zone of the Illinois court’s so-called "retained
jurisdiction."

 
14. Juego-Sakai v. Republic
G.R. No. 224015

Facts:

The Petitioner and Toshiharu Sakai got married in Japan. Thereafter, the parties, by agreement, obtained
a divorce decree in Japan dissolving their marriage. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Judicial
Recognition of Foreign Judgment before the RTC, which the RTC granted and the CA affirmed.

However, the CA in its amended decision, recalled and set aside its previous decision. According to the
CA, the second requisite under Article 26 of the Family Code is missing which is (b) a divorce is obtained
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. This is because the divorce herein was
consensual in nature, obtained by agreement of the parties, and not by Sakai alone.

Thus, since petitioner, a Filipino citizen, also obtained the divorce herein, said divorce cannot be
recognized in the Philippines. In addition, the CA ruled that petitioner's failure to present authenticated
copies of the Civil Code of Japan was fatal to her cause.

Issue: WON the Japan divorce decree can be recognized in the Philippines.

Ruling:

No, The Petitioner was unable to present authenticated copies of the provisions of the Civil Code of
Japan relative to divorce. The Court has held that the starting point in any recognition of a foreign
divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign
judgments and laws. This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts
under our rules on evidence, together with the alien's applicable national law to show the effect of the
judgment on the alien himself or herself.

Since both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien, recognizing his or her capacity to
obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of a sovereign authority, Section 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court applies. Thus, what is required is proof, either by (1) official publications or (2) copies attested
by the officer having legal custody of the documents. If the copies of official records are not kept in the
Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular
officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and
(b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

Here, the Office of the Solicitor General does not dispute the existence of the divorce decree, rendering
the same admissible. What remains to be proven, therefore, is the pertinent Japanese Law on divorce
considering that Japanese laws on persons and family relations are not among those matters that
Filipino judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function.
15. Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. v. Yi
G.R. No. 234501

Facts:

The Respondent Yi was involved in an accident in FAM MART located at El Cajon, California. FAM MART
notified MIC, in which it issued a memorandum acknowledging a valid policy between FAM MART and
MIC. Respondent filed a personal injury action in Superior Court of California, to which the latter ruled in
her favor, filed an action for breach of insurance contract against MIC.

MIC defaulted the court issued a judgment in favor of Respondent.  Notice of renewal of judgment was
issued by the court for the enforcement of the contract. Since she was not able to enforce it in
California, she filed an action for enforcement in RTC. In turn, MIC in its answer denied liability, averring
that it has no privity of contract between FAM MART and Respondent.

Issue: WON respondent can enforce the judgment in the Philippines against MIC

Held:

No, in the absence of a Special Contract. However, it is enforced as a matter of international comity. In
an action to enforce a foreign judgment, the matter left for proof is the foreign judgment itself, and not
the facts from which it prescinds. 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, which is the
State of California in this case.

This Court is well aware that foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they
must be alleged and proven. The main consideration in an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment
is to put such judgment into force. Verily, direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign
judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the requisite interest to institute an action before our courts
for the recognition of the foreign judgment.
16. Arreza v. Toyo,
G.R. No. 213198

Facts:

Petitioner is a Filipino citizen, while the respondent is a Japanese citizen, who was married in Quezon
City.  Thereafter, the two filed a Notification of Divorce by Agreement in Japan. Subsequently, petitioner
filed before the RTC a Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to
remarry. 

The RTC denied the Petition. It decreed that while the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner proved
that their divorce agreement was accepted by the local government of Japan, she nevertheless failed to
prove the copy of Japan's law.

Issue: WON the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce shall be recognized.

Ruling:

No, when a alien spouse later acquires a valid divorce abroad, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity
to remarry provided that the divorce obtained by the foreign spouse enables him or her to remarry. The
second paragraph of Article 26 of the Civil Code was introduced as a corrective measure to resolve an
absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse even after their marital
bond had been severed by the divorce decree obtained abroad.

Through this provision, Philippine courts are given the authority to extend the effect of a foreign divorce
decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the
marriage. It bestowed upon the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or her marriage
considered dissolved, granting him or her the capacity to remarry. 

Nonetheless, settled is the rule that in actions involving the recognition of a foreign divorce judgment, it
is indispensable that the petitioner proves not only the foreign judgment granting the divorce, but also
the alien spouse's national law. This rule is rooted in the fundamental theory that Philippine courts do
not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws.