PIL Y2, 2ND SEM

CASE Mijares v. Ranada G.R. G.R. No. 139325

DOCTRIN There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions that requires the Philippines to
E recognize foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement thereof. However, generally
accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution,
form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations.

The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted as binding result
from the combination two elements:

(1) the established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States;

(2) and a psychological element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law
or necessity).

FACTS Petitioners Mijares, et al.*, all of whom suffered human rights violations during the Marcos era have
chosen to do battle with the Marcos estate. The Alien Tort Act was invoked as basis for the US
District Court's jurisdiction over the complaint, as it involved a suit by aliens for tortious violations
of international law. They obtained a final judgment in their favor against the Estate of the late
Ferdinand Marcos. The US District Court, presided by Judge Manuel L. Real, awarded the plaintiff
class a total of amount of roughly 1.9 Billion U.S. dollars in compensatory and exemplary damages
for tortuous violations of international law in the US District Court of Hawaii. This final judgment
was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals.

As consequence to the enforcement, petitioners filed a complaint with the RTC of Makati, paying
Php 410.00 as docket and filing fees based on Rule 141, Section 7(b) where the value of the subject
matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation. However, the Estate of Marcos filed a motion to dismiss
alleging the non-payment of the correct filing fees. The Marcos Estate cited the Supreme Circular
No. 7 pertaining to the proper computation and payment of docket fees.

The RTC of Makati dismissed complaint filed by the petitioners 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, in order that they be able
to enforce a judgment awarded them by a foreign court.

ISSUE/S  WON generally accepted principles of international law form part of the law of the land even
if they do not derive from treaty obligations? YES – incorporation.
 WON a foreign judgment can be recognized in the Philippines. YES.
RULING/S
YES. There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions that requires the Philippines to

1
 PIL Y2, 2ND SEM
recognize foreign judgments or allow a procedure for the enforcement thereof. By virtue of the
incorporation clause of the Constitution, generally accepted principles of international law form part
of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations. The classical formulation
in international law sees those customary rules accepted as binding result from the combination two
elements: (1) the established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; (2) and a
psychological element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity)
as a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law
requiring it.

Thus, relative to the enforcement of foreign judgments in the Philippines, it emerges that there is a
general right recognized within our body of laws, and affirmed by the Constitution, to seek
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, as well as a right to defend against such
enforcement on the grounds of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact. D

Even there’s no applicable theory behind the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or a
universal treaty rendering it obligatory force, there is consensus that the viability of such recognition
and enforcement is essential. In addition, the rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations
have established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of
competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions
that may vary in different countries. The conditions required by the Philippines for recognition and
enforcement of a foreign judgment were originally contained in Section 311 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which was taken from the California Code of Civil Procedure which, in turn, was
derived from the California Act of March 11, 1872. Remarkably, the procedural rule now outlined
in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure has remained unchanged down to the last
word in nearly a century.

Section 48 states: SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments. The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a
foreign country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows: (a) In case of a
judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing; (b) In case of
a judgment against a person, the judgment 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.

There is an evident distinction between a foreign judgment in an action in rem and one in personam.
For an action in rem, the foreign judgment is deemed conclusive upon the title to the thing, while in
an action in personam,  the foreign judgment is presumptive, and not conclusive, of a right as
between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title. However, in both cases, the
foreign judgment is susceptible to impeachment in our local courts on the grounds of want of
jurisdiction or notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Thus, the party
aggrieved by the foreign judgment is entitled to defend against the enforcement of such decision in
the local forum. It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment,
in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy.

2
 PIL Y2, 2ND SEM