Mijares v. Ranada 139325 April 12, 2005

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 oblligations.

Mijares v. Ranada 139325 April 12, 2005

Recognition of foreign judgement/

foreign judgement, international law, municipal law

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. 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 a consequence to the enforcement, petitioners filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court 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 Regional Trial Court 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: Whether or not a foreign judgment can be recognized in the Philippines

 

HELD

YES. There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions that requires the Philippines to 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: the established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; 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.. 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.