REPORT

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

Submitted by:

ASTIVE, KiaCAMBALIZA,
TzarleneRABUTAZO,
ZymondRICAPLAZA, Dana
DenisseSANTIAGO,
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

 Recognition of Foreign Judgment v. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Recognition of Foreign Judgments Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Domestic court will allow foreign Enforcement exists when a plaintiff wants
judgment to be presented as a defense to the courts to positively carry out and
local litigation make effective in the Philippines a foreign
judgments
It involves merely the sense of justice It implies a direct act of sovereignty
It does not require either action or a It necessitates a separate action or
special proceeding proceeding brought precisely to make the
foreign judgment effective
It may exist without foreign judgment It necessarily carries with its recognition

 Reason for procedure for Enforcement:

o A foreign judgment cannot be automatically enforced because it has no
effect beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the foreign court which issued it.
Hence, an action or proceeding needs to be filed to make it effective in the
forum
o This rule is founded on the sovereign right of any country.

o Unless the Philippines gave its consent, a foreign law may have no
extraterritorial effect

 Effect of foreign judgment

o A foreign judgment is a prima facie evidence of a right only because the
court can refuse its enforcement if there is evidence of a want of
 jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of
law or fact

 Basis of Recognition of Foreign Judgments

o Comity and reciprocity

 This theory asserts that the application of foreign legal systems in

cases involving foreign element is proper because their non-
application would constitute a disregard of foreign sovereignty.
 Comity - recognition which one nation allows within the territory to
the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation having
due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the
rights of its own citizens, or of other persons who are under the
protection of its laws.
o Legal Obligation (vested rights)

 Based on the concept of territoriality under which the court can

apply only its own territorial law. Cannot recognize foreign
laws/enforce foreign judgments but it is one of the tenets of justice
that rights acquired in one country must be recognized and legally
protected in others.
o Res judicata

 Public policy dictates that there be an end of litigation; that those

who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result of the
contest, and that the matters once tried shall be considered forever
settled as between the parties.

 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/

CHOICE OF LAW
QUESTIONS THAT CHOICE OF APPLICABLE LAW SEEKS TO ANSWER:
1. What legal system should control a given situation were some of the significant
facts occurred in two or more states?
2. To what extent should the chosen system regulate the situation?

CHOICE OF LAW THEORIES

A. Traditional Approach – which emphasize the principles of simplicity,
convenience and uniformity.
B. Modern Approach – which relate to “reaching appropriate results in particular
cases”

A. TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
1. Vested Rights Theory

- Courts enforce not the foreign law or foreign judgement but the right/s
vested under such law or judgement.

- Rights acquired in one country must be recognized and legally

protected in other countries.

- The forum will not apply the foreign law but will simply recognize the
right vested by said law.

2. Local Law Theory

- This involves the appropriation of a foreign rule by the State of the

forum and transforming it into a domestic rule.
 - A foreign law is applied because our own law, by applying a similar
rule, requires us to do so, as if the foreign law has become a part of
our own internal or domestic law.

- Article 16 of paragraph 2 of the Civil Code requires the application of

the national law of the deceased in the matter of his testate or intestate
succession.

3. Theory of Justice

- Caver’s Principles of Preference

- The thesis of Prof. David F. Cavers’ article entitled “A Critique of the

Conflict of Laws Problem” was that choice of law should be determined
by “considerations of justice and social expediency” and should not be
the result of mechanical application of the rule or principle of selection.

- The defect in this theory is that different persons have different ideas of
what is just.

B. MODERN APPROACH
1. Place of the Most Significant Relationship
- In contract cases, the factual contacts include (a) the law chosen by the parties and
in the absence thereof; by (b) the place of the contracting; (c) the place of negotiation of
the contract; (d) the place of performance; and (e) the domicile, residence, nationality,
place of incorporation and place of business of the parties.

C. OTHER APPROACHES
1. Theory of Comity
- Comity is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory, to the legislative,
executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard to both international duty
and convenience and to the rights of its own citizens, of other persons who are under
the protection of its laws.
- The application of foreign legal systems in cases involving foreign element is proper,
otherwise, the non-application would constitute a disregard of foreign sovereignty or
lack of comity towards other States.
2. Harmony of Laws Theory
- Identical or similar problems should be given identical or similar solutions, thus
resulting in harmony of laws.
- The application of the same or similar solution prevents the bad practice of
forum shopping.
Note : These theories do not exclude each other; perhaps, the combination thereof may
lead to a better choice of law.

FOREIGN LAW EFFECT

General Rule: Foreign law has no extraterritorial effect;
Exception: Consent of the nation.
In accordance with this principle, a foreign law may have no extraterritorial effect in the
Philippines, except when there has been consent, expressly or impliedly, thereto by the
latter.
The consent to the extraterritorial application of a foreign law in our country may be
expressly given through:
1. Form of local law adopting a foreign law like U.S Carriage of Sea Act;
2. Pointing to a foreign law as applicable law like Article 17 of Civil Code
prescribing the law governing the form and solemnities of contracts or wills where they
have been executed;
3. Treaties adhering International Convention like Warsaw Convention.
The consent to the extraterritorial application of a foreign law in our country may be
impliedly given through the observance of the principles of comity.

CHARACTERIZATION
Before a choice of law can be made, it is necessary to determine under what
category a certain set of facts or rules fall. The process is known as “characterization,”
or the “doctrine of qualifications.”
 It is the process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question
specified in a conflicts rule. The purpose of characterization is to enable the court of the
forum to select the proper law.
Example: A practicing lawyer always makes a characterization when he is
retained as lawyer in a case. He assembles and analyzes the facts, and decides under
what cause of action, such as for damages, specific performance, for a sum of money
etc., may be categorized. Then he decides which law is applicable.
Conflict between foreign law and local law; the latter prevails.
JURISDICTION

- The right of the state to exercise authority over persons and things within its
boundaries, subject to certain exceptions.

 Judicial Jurisdiction- is the power or authority of a court to try a case, render

judgment and execute it in accordance with law.

 Legislative Jurisdiction- the ability of the state to promulgate laws and enforce
them on all persons and property within its territory.

TYPES OF JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter:

o The power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceeding in question belong and is confirmed by the sovereign authority which
organizes the court and defines its powers.
o It is conferred by law, not by consent of the parties or voluntary submission.

o It is the allegation in the petition or complaint that will invest the court with the
power to hear and determine the case.
 If the allegations in the complaint shows a prima facie lack of
jurisdiction- DISMISS
  If on the complaints face, there is a presence of jurisdiction- Proceed
with TRIAL
 If evidence show lack of jurisdiction- DISMISS THE CASE

2. Jurisdiction over the Person:

o Competence or power of a court to render a decision that will bind the parties to
the suit.

3. Jurisdiction over the Plaintiff:

o Acquired from the moment he invokes the aid of the court and voluntarily
submits himself by institution of the suit through proper pleadings.

4. Jurisdiction over the Defendant:

o Acquired when he enters his appearance or by the coercive power of legal
process exerted by the court over him.

Under Rule 14 of Revised Rules of Court

Sec. 6. Service in person on defendant. – Whenever practicable, the summons shall

be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, if he refuses to receive
and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
Sec. 7. Substituted Service.- If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served
within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected
(a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s dwelling house or residence
therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge thereof.

5. Jurisdiction over the Res:

o Jurisdiction over the res or thing is jurisdiction over the particular subject-matter
in controversy, regardless of the persons who may be interested therein.
 o Where the action is in rem jurisdiction, the situs could “bind the world” and not
just the interest of specific persons. The basis for the exercise of jurisdiction is
the presence of property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum.
o An action affecting the personal status of the plaintiff is classified as an action
quasi in rem

Jurisdiction in the Due Process Clauses

Proceeding in rem- service of summons by publication is sufficient because the case is

enforced against the rest of the world.

Proceeding in personam- personal service of summons or voluntary appearance of the

defendant, by himself or counsel is required.

Proceeding quasi in rem- summons by publication is sufficient.

A state does not have jurisdiction in the absence of some reasonable basis for
exercising it, whether the proceeding are in rem, quasi in rem or personam. To be
reasonable, jurisdiction must be based on some minimum contacts that will not offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Ways of disposing of conflict cases:

How to deal with a problem in Conflict of Laws?

a. Fist, determine whether the court has jurisdiction.

If Yes- whether it should assume jurisdiction over the case or Dismiss it on the ground
of forum non conveniens.
If No- the case should be dismissed on that ground.

Doctrine of FORUM NON CONVENIENS

Even if the court assumes jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, it may
decline to try the case on the ground that the controversy may be more suitably tried
elsewhere.

-American courts have applied the doctrine in order to prevent abuse of the court’s
process.
- Another reason for the rule is to avoid global forum shopping, which is the filing of
repetitious suits in courts of different jurisdiction.

It is the law of the forum that determines whether the court has jurisdiction or not over
the case.

b. Once the court has determined whether it has jurisdiction over the case, it will
next determine whether to apply the INTERNAL LAW OF FORUM or the proper
foreign law, considering the attendant circumstances.

A court may choose to assume jurisdiction over a conflict problem and apply
forum or foreign law. However, since the basic law is the law of the forum, it should be
applied whenever there s a good reason to do so.

The presence of any one of the following factors would justify the application of
internal law:
1. A specific law of the forum decrees that internal law should apply;
2. The proper foreign law was not properly pleaded and proved; or
3. The case falls under any of the exceptions to the application of foreign law.
Forum law decrees application of internal law.

- Our civil code specifies when our court has to apply forum law.

Forum law was not properly pleaded and proved.

- Forum law should be applied when there is failure to plead and prove the
pertinent foreign law.

- Our courts may not take judicial cognizance of any foreign law; hence, failure
to plead and prove foreign law leads to the presumption that it is the same as
forum law.

Foreign law cannot be applied

Forum law should be applied if the case falls under the exceptions to the
application of the foreign law. These exceptions are:

1.) when the foreign law is contrary to an important public policy of the forum;
2.) when the foreign law is penal in nature
3.) when the foreign law is procedural in nature
4.) when the foreign law is purely fiscal or administrative in nature;
5.) when the application of foreign law will work undeniable injustice to the citizens of
the forum
6.) when the case involves real or personal property situated in the forum;
7.) when the application of the foreign law might endanger the vital interest of the
state;
8.) when the foreign law is contrary to good morals.