Ela Dwyn Q.

Cordova
• Enforcement means that the plaintiff or
petitioner wants the court to positively carry
out and make effective the foreign judgment,
while recognition means that the defendant or
respondent is presenting the foreign judgment
merely as a defense, on the basis of res judicata.

• Enforcement implies an act of sovereignty;

recognition involves merely a sense of justice.
• Enforcement requires a separate action or
proceeding brought precisely to make the foreign
judgment effective; recognition, being a matter of
defense, needs no action or proceeding but implies
that am action or proceeding has already bee filed
against the defendant who is invoking the foreign
judgment.

• Enforcement cannot exist without recognition, while

recognition does not need or does not require
enforcement.
EXAMPLE OF RECOGNITION

An American presents a foreign decree of divorce as a

defense in a case for bigamy against him in the
Philippines.

EXAMPLE OF ENFORCEMENT

A Filipina who had been divorced by her alien husband

under Art. 26 of the Family Code and who was denied
by the local civil registrar a marriage license for her to
be able to marry again, files an action with the proper
court to compel said official to issue her a marriage
license on the basis of the divorce decree obtained
from her by her alien husband.
a.) There must be adequate proof of the
foreign judgment.

b.) The judgment must be on a civil or

commercial matter, not on a criminal,
revenue, or administrative matter.

c.) Must not have been obtained by fraud,

collusion or clear mistake of fact or law
(Rule 39, Section 48, of the Rules of Court).
d.) The foreign judgment must not
contravene a sound and established public
policy of the forum.

e.) The judgment must be res judicata, i.e., the

judgment must be final; the foreign court
must have jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties; the judgments must
be on the merits; and there was identity of
parties, subject matter, and cause of action.
A foreign arbitral award is rendered by an
arbitrator or panel of arbitrators in a foreign
country.

The grounds for its recognition and

enforcement in the Philippines are those
exclusively found in Article V of the New York
Convention and the procedural details are set
out in Rule 13 of the Special ADR Rules.
1. Recognition and enforcement of the award
may be refused, at the request of the party
against whom it is invoked, only if that party
furnishes to the competent authority where the
recognition and enforcement is sought, proof
that:
a) The parties to the agreement referred to in
article II were, under the law applicable to them,
under some incapacity, or the said agreement is
not valid under the law to which the parties have
subjected it or, failing any indication thereon,
under the law of the country where the award
was made; or

(b) The party against whom the award is invoked

was not given proper notice of the appointment
of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings
or was otherwise unable to present his case; or
(c) The award deals with a difference not contemplated by
or not falling within the terms of the submission to
arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the
scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if
the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be
separated from those not so submitted, that part of the
award which contains decisions on matters submitted to
arbitration may be recognized and enforced; or

(d) The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral

procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of
the parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in
accordance with the law of the country where the
arbitration took place; or
(e) The award has not yet become binding on the parties,
or has been set aside or suspended by a competent
authority of the country in which, or under the law of
which, that award was made.

2. Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may

also be refused if the competent authority in the country
where recognition and enforcement is sought finds that:

(a) The subject matter of the difference is not capable of

settlement by arbitration under the law of that country; or

(b) The recognition or enforcement of the award would be

contrary to the public policy of that country.
• A foreign judgment must be proved as a fact.

• The judgment must not be contrary to a sound and

established public policy of the Philippines.

• The foreign judgment must pertain to a civil or

commercial matter.

• There must be no lack of jurisdiction, no want of notice,

no collusion, no fraud, no clear mistake of fact or law.

• The requisites of res judicata must be present.

Rosarie C. De La Paz
Foreign judgments are recognized and allowed to be
enforced in our jurisdiction as a matter of comity with
the international community. We give full faith and
credit to judgments issued by foreign courts so long as
these judgments are not contrary to public policy or our
prohibitive laws.

Thus, a foreign judgment awarding the custody of a child

below seven years old to the father may not be enforced
in Philippine courts since it is our policy to award
automatic custody to the mother of the child who is
below seven years old. Likewise, a divorce decree issued
by a foreign court involving Philippine nationals is not
recognized in our country since divorce is against our
public policy and Philippine nationals are governed by
Philippine laws.
SEC. 48. 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.
c. 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.

Under Section 48, If the judgment is upon a specific thing the

judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing. If the
judgment is against a person, the judgment is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties. Hence, If the
judgment concerns the ownership of real or personal property,
that judgment binds the title to the real or personal property.
On the other hand, if a foreign court orders a person to pay a
specific sum or to perform an act, the same binds the
respondent party to perform or satisfy the judgment of the
foreign court, unless he presents proof to repel the foreign
judgment.
Although issued in another jurisdiction, the decision of a foreign court
has the effect of res judicata in our jurisdiction. Thus, foreign decisions
are afforded conclusiveness of judgment in our jurisdiction as if they
were also a decision rendered by local courts.

Generally, a foreign judgment is entitled to respect and recognition by

our courts. The only duty of our courts is to ensure that the judgment is
genuine, authentic, and in accordance with foreign law. If those
conditions are complied with, the court's remaining duty is to enforce
the foreign judgment. Under no circumstance are local courts
authorized to reopen the case and relitigate the issues under our
procedures.

Local courts may not review the correctness or appropriateness of the

foreign court's decision so long as they do not violate public policy or
prohibitive laws.
G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013

Facts: Japanese national Fujiki married Philippine national

Marinay on January 23, 2004. Due to some disagreements, they
became separated with each other. Marinay met another Japanese
national, Maekara, and they married on May 15, 2008. Marinay
suffered physical abuse from Maekara so she re-established her
relationship with Fujiki. Marinay later obtained a judgment from a
Japanese court declaring her marriage with Maekara as void on the
ground that it was a bigamous marriage. Fujiki then filed a petition
for recognition of foreign judgment with the Regional Trial Court
("RTC") involving the foreign judgment annulling the marriage
between Marinay and Maekara. The RIC dismissed the petition on
the ground that only the husband or the wife can file the petition
for recognition under A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC) which is the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Vold Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages.
Fujiki moved for reconsideration but this was also denied. Fujiki
then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue I: Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of

Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (" A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC*) is applicable to a foreign judgment of nullity.
Stated otherwise, is a Philippine court authorized to relitigate the
issues already decided by a foreign court?

Held: No.
1. For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating
to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of
a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to prove the foreign
judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court.
2. To hold that Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10 SC
applies to a petition for recognition of foreign judgment
would mean that the trial court and the parties should
follow its provisions, including the form and contents of
the petition, the service of summons, the investigation
of the public prosecutor, the setting of pre-trial, the
trial, and the judgment of the trial court. This is absurd
because it will litigate the case anew. It will defeat the
purpose of recognizing foreign judgments, which is "to
limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues." The
interpretation of the RIC is tantamount to relitigating
the case on the merits.
3. A petition to recognize a foreign judgment
declaring a marriage void does not require
relitigation under a Philippine court of the case as
if it were a new petition for declaration of nullity
of marriage. Philippine courts cannot presume to
know the foreign laws under which the foreign
judgment was rendered. They cannot substitute
their judgment on the status, condition, and legal
capacity of the foreign citizen who is under the
jurisdiction of another state. Thus, Philippine
courts can only recognize the foreign judgment as
a fact according to the rules of evidence.
4. Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that a
foreign judgment or final order against a person creates a
“presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title.” Moreover, Section 48
of the Rules of Court states that "the judgment or final order may be
repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
party, collusion, fraud, or dear mistake of law or fact“. Thus,
Philippine courts exercise limited review on foreign judgments,
Courts are not allowed to delve into the merits of a foreign
judgment. Once a foreign judgment is admitted and proven in a
Philippine court, it can only be repelled on grounds external to its
merits, i.e, "want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact." The rule on limited
review embodies the policy of efficiency and the protection of party
expectations, as well as respecting the jurisdiction of other states.
Issue II: Whether a foreign decree of absolute nullity of marriage
is against Philippine public policy.

Held: No.

1. There is therefore no reason to disallow Fujiki to simply prove

as a fact the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the
marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy.
While the Philippines has no divorce law, the Japanese Family
Court judgment is fully consistent with Philippine public policy,
as bigamous marriages are declared void from the beginning
under Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the
existence of the Japanese Family Court judgment in accordance
with Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132, in relation to Section 48(b),
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
2. Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on Philippine
courts 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. The second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code provides that "where a marriage between a Filipino
citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to
remarry under Philippine law." The second paragraph of Article 26
of the Family Code only authorizes Philippine courts to adopt the
effects of a foreign divorce decree precisely because the Philippines
does not allow divorce. Philippine courts cannot try the case on the
merits because it is tantamount to trying a case for divorce.
3. A critical difference between the case of a foreign divorce
decree and a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is
that bigamy, as a ground for the nullity o marriage, is fully
consistent with Philippine public policy as expressed in Article
35(4) of the Family Code and Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code. The Filipino spouse has the option to undergo full trial by
filing a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under
Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10-SC, but this is not the only
remedy available to him or her. Philippine courts have
jurisdiction to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous
marriage, without prejudice to a criminal prosecution for bigamy.
4. In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are
incompetent to substitute their judgment on how a case was
decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the "family
rights and duties or on the status, condition and legal capacity” of
the foreign citizen who is a party to the foreign judgment. Thus,
Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to extend
the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines.

5. For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1)

whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an overriding
public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging party
is able to prove an extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment,
ie., want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion,
fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
If there is neither inconsistency with public policy nor adequate
proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default,
recognize the foreign as part of the comity nations. Section 48(b),
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states that the foreign judgment is
already “presumptive evidence of a right between the parties.”
Upon recognition of the foreign judgment, this right becomes
conclusive and the judgment serves as the basis for the correction
or cancellation of entry in the civil registry. The recognition of
the foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is a
subsequent event that establishes a new status, right, and fact
that needs to be reflected in the civil registry. Otherwise, there
will be an inconsistency between the recognition of the
effectivity of the foreign judgment and the public records in the
Philippines.
 The general rule is that foreign judgments are entitled to respect and
recognition in our jurisdiction and that local courts have no authority
to review and relitigate the decision. However, there are instances
when local courts are authorized to set aside the foreign judgment and
reopen the issues decided by a foreign court. Section 48 of Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court enumerates want of jurisdiction, want of notice to
the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact as bases for
repelling a foreign judgment. Hence, if a party was not afforded an
opportunity to be heard by the foreign court, a local court is justified in
reopening the case to litigate a contentious issue in the foreign
judgment. Too often, this lack of opportunity to be heard can arise from
the deprivation of the right of counsel to a party to the case. Local
courts must ensure that parties were properly notified of complaints
filed against them to afford them an opportunity to answer. Also, if the
foreign judgment is so unjust and unfair that it will not stand up to the
test of fundamental fairness and justice, local courts are justified in not
recognizing the foreign judgment.
For example, convictions in foreign jurisdictions based purely
on religious grounds like offending religious feelings may not
stand up to Western standards of free speech. Also, those
convictions based on laws violative of substantive due process
may be refused recognition by local courts.

For example, some foreign jurisdictions prohibit women from

operating motor vehicles and penalize them criminally for
violations thereof. Western countries also frown upon the
practice of some jurisdictions that automatically award
custody to the mother of minor children based mainly on the
fact that mothers are kinder and more loving than fathers.
Indeed, this is gender-based discrimination In these instances,
the foreign laws suffer from a fundamental lack of reason
which may then be used as a ground for setting aside foreign
judgments or convictions.