CHAPTER 3: TRIAL OF A CONFLICTS CASE

PRINCIPLES AND CASES IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:

A PROCEDURAL APPROACH

 

-oOo-

 

MARK ANGELO S. DELA PEÑA


To cite this online book, please use the following:


Dela Peña. 2023. "Principles and Cases in Private International Law: A Procedural Approach." Published by Project Jurisprudence - Philippines. Published: September 17, 2023. Link: [Insert link] Last accessed: [Insert date of access].


x---------------------------------------------x


CHAPTER 3:

TRIAL OF A CONFLICTS CASE

During the trial of the case, the plaintiff, of course, is interested in keeping the proceedings rolling. In other words, it is the defendant who usually invokes the forum’s inconvenience because s/he is interested in having the case thrown out of court.

Obviously, it does not make much sense for the plaintiff to invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens because s/he is naturally interested in the resolution of the dispute s/he brought to court. In fact, it is the plaintiff who chooses where and in what court to file the case. In all likelihood, it is the defendant who is inclined to raise the defense of inconvenience because success in doing so means the court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

Note the difference between dismissal on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and refusal to exercise jurisdiction. The first one means that the court has no power conferred by law to hear and decide the case; the second one means that, although the court has jurisdiction, it refuses to exercise or perform the same for justifiable grounds such as forum non conveniens.

It is also worth mentioning that, since the court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens is neither a judgment on the merits nor a technical disqualification that results in dismissal with prejudice, the plaintiff is not precluded from re-filing the same case and the principle of res judicata will generally not apply.

If the defendant is successful in invoking, pleading, and proving the forum’s inconvenience, and if, as a result, the court issues an order refusing to exercise jurisdiction, a possible remedy for the plaintiff is to file the case before an available alternative alien forum whose location and circumstances are more convenient for the parties to resort to in the trial of the case. Stated differently, if the defendant successfully proves his/her claim of forum non-conveniens, the court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may properly refuse to exercise its jurisdiction over the case.

Note as well that the refusal by a court to exercise jurisdiction over a case rests on its sound discretion. Considering that it is not mandatory for a court to dismiss a case on the ground of inconvenience and considering that it is not only a power but also a duty on the part of the forum to hear a case within its jurisdiction, the court may anchor its ruling on good grounds and justifiable reasons to retain the case and proceed with it accordingly.

An example of a good reason to decline refusal of jurisdiction is when the court finds that, despite it being an inconvenient forum, it is not so inconvenient that it prevents the parties from proceeding with the trial with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence to support their allegations, claims, and defenses. Another example would be that, despite it being an inconvenient forum, the court finds that there is no alternative alien forum that is available to hear and decide the case for the parties.

INVOCATION, PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW

As to the existence of foreign law, it is not unnatural to expect that the plaintiff and the defendant may be interested in proving the same, especially if the said foreign law favors his/her version of the case. The plaintiff may be entertaining a case theory that the application of Kenyan law will favor his/her claims while, in the same dispute, the defendant may be inclined to invoke Philippine law if s/he believes it to be more favorable to his/her defense.

Say that an English male and a Filipino female, while in the territory of the United Kingdom, entered into a written contract of loan with a stipulation of an interest rate of 10% per month whereby the former would lend the latter the amount equivalent to Php1,000,000.00. She defaulted on her obligation to him and flew back to the Philippines. He sued her for collection in an English court which awarded judgment in his favor at the amount and the rate agreed upon. Constrained to have the English court’s decision recognized and enforced in the Philippines, he filed the necessary petition in a Philippine court. Naturally, he would invoke the law of the place of the execution and the expected place of performance of the contract (lex loci solutionis), i.e., the United Kingdom. On her part, she would naturally be inclined to invoke the case of Asian Cathay Finance and Leasing Corp. v. Spouses Gravador[1] wherein the Supreme Court declared: “It is true that parties to a loan agreement have a wide latitude to stipulate on any interest rate in view of Central Bank Circular No. 905, series of 1982, which suspended the Usury Law ceiling on interest rate effective January 1, 1983. However, interest rates, whenever unconscionable, may be equitably reduced or even invalidated. In several cases, this Court had declared as null and void stipulations on interest and charges that were found excessive, iniquitous and unconscionable.”[2]

In the illustration above, the forum is confronted with important questions of whether English law should be applied, considering that the contract was perfected in the United Kingdom and the performance of the contract was intended by the parties to be therein, and whether Philippine law should be applied, considering that the forum has a policy against unconscionable interest rates which may be tempered by the court. The court may also opt to adopt a modern trend in conflict of laws called “the center of gravity doctrine.”

On the topic of interest rates, a conflicts case reached the Supreme Court in the form of Bankruptcy Estate of Mitich v. Mercantile Insurance.[3] Here, the Court found that the award by the California Court of 10% legal interest per annum was iniquitous and unconscionable considering that the said foreign forum already awarded moral damages (i.e., emotional distress) of $250,000.00 and punitive damages of $500,000.00. This, by itself, is already almost triple the amount it owed Mitich (i.e., $285,500.00) based on the latter's insurance policy. The Supreme Court took the liberty of computing the 27 years’ worth of interest awarded by the trial court and found that Mercantile's debt would balloon to $4,202,937.82. It was held: “This amount is certainly shocking to the senses and would drive Mercantile to bankruptcy. Post-judgment interests were never meant to drive a litigant to the ground, especially when the right to litigate and its exercise are allowed by law and rules. To award the ten percent (10%) would wreak havoc to the financial solvency of Mercantile and surely result in financial distress, or worse, insolvency proceedings, to the detriment of Mercantile's insurance undertaking, creditors, and other obligations. The Court is simply not prepared to do that. Hence, the Court is disinclined to exacerbate the colossal financial burden on Mercantile.” Even then, the Supreme Court could not ignore the fact that the California Court awarded “interest on [the default judgment] as provided by law.” In view, however, of the failure of the California Court to specify the rate of interest and the manner of its accrual, compounded by the iniquitous result of applying the supposed prevailing rate of post-judgment interest in California, the Philippine Supreme Court deemed it just and equitable to award temperate damages of Php500,000.00.

Mention was made in the previous paragraphs about the doctrine of center of gravity. The center of gravity doctrine is a conflict of laws rule that determines which country's law or laws should apply to a dispute containing a foreign element. The doctrine holds that the law of the country with the “closest connection” to the case should apply. This connection is usually determined by looking at factors such as the parties' nationalities, the location of the contract, and the place where the injury occurred. In other words, the forum in the given example, in approaching the case using this doctrine, would list down all the factors relevant to the case.

Imagine that the judge is working on a two-column table wherein the column on the left represents a preference for English law while the column on the right represents a preference for Philippine law. Imagine also that the judge lists down each factor that falls under the proper column such as the nationality of the creditor, place of perfection of the contract, place of expected or intended performance of the contract, and others under the column on the left; while the nationality of the debtor, the seat of the forum, and others under the column on the right. Finding that the factors gravitate toward a particular choice of law, it is that choice of law which appears to be the center of gravity in the dispute which the court may opt to apply in the case.

Another illustration would be a Filipino migrant worker who was recruited in the Philippines via a private recruitment and placement agency (PRPA) for work in Saudi Arabia. The contract was perfected in the Philippines but the intended place of performance is Saudi Arabia where the principal employer domiciles. The agreed rate was $50 per day but, when the worker arrived in Saudi Arabia, s/he was only paid $25 per day, s/he was physically abused by the employer and she was sued under frivolous and trumped-up charges of immorality, a charge taken very seriously by the Saudi Arabian government. Upon arrival in the Philippines, the Filipino worker used the agency for damages. The agency would naturally invoke certain legal principles in private international law that will mitigate, if not absolve, its liability. It might be inclined to argue that the place of the wrong (lex loci delicti) was in Saudi Arabia and/or that the Philippine court is an inconvenient forum. On the other hand, the Filipino worker might tell the court that the perfection of the contract was made within the Philippine territory and/or invoke the public and constitutional policy on the protection given to labor.

In the example problem about the Filipino worker, the court may opt to take a traditional approach or a modern approach. A traditional approach might mean that the court will consider the place of the injury in its process of choice of law, thereby ruling that Saudi Arabian law should apply. The court, if convinced, may also find that the Saudi Arabian court is an available alternative forum more convenient than the present forum. A modern approach may mean the use of the principle of “the state with the most significant relationship.” In either approach, the court might also invoke the public policy of the Philippines to override any conflict of laws rules invoked by the parties.

TRIAL TO PROCEED IF NO REFUSAL OF JURISDICTION

If the defendant fails to convince the court of his/her claim of forum non-conveniens, the case ought to proceed as mandated by the Rules of Court. Hence, the plaintiff and thereafter the defendant will adduce evidence to support their respective claims and defenses. In a conflicts case, the invocation and proof of foreign law often become relevant during the trial of the case.

During the presentation of evidence, the party invoking foreign law is allowed the opportunity to adduce proof of the existence of said foreign law. Procedural law provides for the manner in doing so.[4]

PRESUMED-IDENTITY APPROACH

If the party invoking the existence of foreign law fails to prove the same, the court is justified in presuming that Philippine laws are the same as foreign law, under the doctrine of processual presumption.[5]

The doctrine of processual presumption is understood in two ways. First, in conflict of laws (the strict sense), foreign law is presumed to be the same as Philippine municipal law, unless there is proof to the contrary. Second, in public international law (the broad sense; also known as “presumption on foreign law” or, more properly, “presumption against forum law”), it is a legal principle that states that the law of the forum state is presumed to be the applicable law in a case, unless there is a strong reason to apply the law of another state.[6] These views are grounded on the reality that the forum is concerned only with the laws of its own state.

The doctrine of processual presumption (in the broad sense) is obviously not absolute, and, being a prima facie presumption, it can be rebutted if there is a strong reason to apply the law of another state. For example, if the parties to the dispute have agreed to apply the law of another state in their contract, or if the law of another state has a stronger connection to the dispute, or if the center of gravity or the factors lean toward the application of another state’s law.

In Philippine evidence law, Philippine courts are required to take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.[7] None of these mentions the laws of a foreign country because foreign law is a question of fact that must be alleged and proved. In simpler terms, Philippine courts are to take judicial notice of Philippine laws and cannot take judicial notice of the laws of another state.

CHARACTERIZATION

If the existence and applicability of foreign law are properly established, the court is now in the position to undergo the process of characterization and to determine the proper choice of law.

“Characterization” is a term of art in private international law. It is the process of identifying the legal nature of a legal relationship in order to determine which law applies to it. It is a preliminary step in the conflict of laws analysis. Confronted with a conflicts case, the forum must take the first step in characterization, which is to identify the legal relationship that is at issue, i.e., whether the case falls under contract law, family law, succession law, torts law, and the like. This, the court accomplishes by looking at the facts of the case and the legal arguments of the parties. Once the legal relationship of the parties and the factual factors have been identified, the next step is for the court to determine the applicable law.

Characterization is a process that pertains to the law of the forum court. In the process of characterization by a Philippine court, Philippine laws will identify the proper legal category that is most closely connected to the legal relationship because it is the conflict of laws rules of the municipal law that primarily governs the case and the initial point of view of the forum.

The forum cannot make a proper choice of law without first characterizing a case. For example, a dispute involving an airplane injury that occurred in South Africa wherein the injured parties are Filipinos who bought the airplane ticket in the Philippines may be characterized as falling under torts law. Having identified the proper category of law of the case, the court may then be in a position to make a proper choice of law between South African torts law and Philippine torts law.

CHOICE-OF-LAW PROBLEMS

In the case of Vda. de Alcañeses v. Alcañeses,[8] the Supreme Court held that there is no specifically prescribed means to resolve a conflict of laws problem; choice of law varies depending on the circumstances. Courts may employ the “state with the most significant relationship” test in determining the choice of law in tort liability.

In the Vda. de Alcañeses case, the High Court went on to explain that choice-of-law problems resolve the following questions: (a) which legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and, (b) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation.

The facts of the Vda. de Alcañeses case are as follows. Efren was an Air Afrique pilot. On January 30, 2000, as a non-paying passenger, he boarded Kenya Air flight 431 bound for Nairobi, Kenya. The plane departed from Abidjan, Ivory Coast. While in transit over the Ivory Coast, the plane exploded mid-air, killing everyone on board. Esther is Efren's surviving widow. Kenya Air awarded compensation of $430,000.00 to Ester. In litem, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared void the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by Ester concerning the estate of Efren and ordered the delivery of half of Kenya Air's award of $430,000.00 to Efren's collateral relatives. Ester was able to plead and prove the existence of Kenyan law which provides that an action for damages shall be for the family of the deceased—wife, husband, parent, or child—which makes no mention of collateral relatives.

The issues for resolution were the following: (a) first, whether or not Philippine law governs an international carrier's indemnity award to a Filipino widow for death arising from a quasi-delict committed in a foreign country; and (b) second, whether or not the Filipino decedent's collateral relatives should be indemnified along with the surviving widow.

It was ruled in the Vda. de Alcañeses case that that Kenyan law properly applies here, and there is no basis to apply Philippine law on the matter. Such being the case, the Court did not find it necessary to answer the inquiries as to whether collateral blood relatives sustained pecuniary loss, being the decedent's heirs under Philippine law. Neither should the issue of whether Efren was obliged to support respondents be resolved. These are irrelevant. As far as the Fatal Accidents Act of Kenya is concerned, a decedent's heirs are only the surviving spouse, ascendants, and descendants. Nowhere does it mention the collateral relatives of a deceased person. In other words, the Court applied foreign law because the injury arose in that foreign state. The Supreme Court also held that the courts below should not have directed the petitioner to deliver shares of the proceeds to respondents, considering it correctly held that US$430,000.00 did not form part of Efren's estate. In resolving this, the Supreme Court applied Philippine law on succession.

Notice that, in the Vda. de Alcañeses case, insofar as entitlement to damages was concerned, the Supreme Court applied the law of the place of the injury. However, insofar as the question of whether the compensation award formed part of the estate of Efren, the Court utilized Philippine succession law. This is a process called depacage (also spelled “dépeçage).

In private international law, dépeçage is the process of applying different laws to different aspects of a legal issue. This is done when the issue has connections to multiple jurisdictions, and the laws of those jurisdictions differ. For example, if a couple gets married in one country and then moves to another country, their family rights and duties may be said to be governed by their national law but their property relations may be governed by the place where their real property and personal property may be situated.

Dépeçage is a complex legal issue, and there are no pre-packaged answers or resolutions, especially because it involves a deep analysis of not only the laws involved but also the factual circumstances of each case. Worse, the laws of different jurisdictions may conflict with each other, and this can add to the difficulty of determining which law should properly apply.

Thus far, based on the immediately foregoing paragraphs, the student of private international law has probably realized that, first, the court must first characterize a case before making a proper choice of law. In the process of resolving a choice-of-law problem, depacage may be used as a tool to slice up legal issues and apply a different system of law or laws to each legal issue, as may be proper. The law of a different jurisdiction may apply to one aspect of a case while Philippine law may apply to another aspect of the same case.

DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS, OBLIGATIONS

After the termination of the parties’ presentation of evidence, the court is now in the position to decide the case and to determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

The rights and obligations of parties may arise from different categories of law, i.e., whether torts law, contracts law, or family law. Determination may also be made by the forum that a foreign law applies to one right or obligation while the municipal law of the forum applies to another right or obligation.

For example, if a Chinese national who is domiciled in the Philippines executed a last will in South Africa but sought the probate of the will in North Carolina where s/he is a resident, the first point of reference is North Carolinian law. The North Carolinian court tasked to proceed with the probate of the testament will then have to look into its own forum law to determine the extrinsic and intrinsic validity of the will and to follow the procedural regulations of its own state.

If, in the above example, the last will and testament is submitted for probate in a Philippine court, Philippine law maintains that the intrinsic validity of the will is determined by the law of the place of its execution. More particularly, Article 17 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that “the forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.” This is more popularly known as lex loci celebrationis.

However, following the last mentioned problem, as to the contents of the will, the same Article 17 provides that “intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.” Hence, in resolving the extrinsic validity of the example Chinese national’s will, Philippine courts must look into the law of South Africa in terms of its forms and solemnities. If South African law requires that the will must be subjected to the smoke of a burning carcass of a goat, said form and solemnity must be complied with. To exaggerate, if South African law requires that the will must be subjected to the sneeze of a goat, such form and solemnity must be followed; otherwise, the will may be considered by Philippine courts as extrinsically invalid.

On the other hand, in resolving the order of succession and the amount of successional rights pertaining to the will of the example Chinese national, Philippine courts must look into what his/her national law provides. If in his/her national law, the only compulsory heir is his/her spouse, this must be followed. If in his/her national law, there is no compulsory heir and s/he is free to dispose of his/her estate in whatever way s/he may desire, Philippine law on legitimes cannot be given effect.

Of course, in between all these determinations, the general rule remains. Foreign laws cannot be presumed and in him/her who alleges the existence of foreign law resides the burden of proof. Hence, if South African law on forms and solemnities is not properly proved, under the doctrine of processual presumption, South African law is presumed to be the same as Philippine law and the forms and solemnities of a will as required by Philippine succession law will determine extrinsic validity. If Chinese law on the amount of successional rights, order of succession, and capacity to succeed[9] is not properly proved, Chinese law is presumed to be the same as Philippine law and the rules on intrinsic validity as required by Philippine succession law will determine the same.

ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS

Once judgment is rendered, the matter of enforcement or recognition of judgment becomes the focal point.

The law of the forum governs the enforcement of judgments. In the Philippines, execution issues as a matter of right, or motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.[10]

Also, in the Philippines, final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations.[11]

Execution may be for money, for specific acts, or for special judgments.[12] 

Generally, for executions for money, the same is done via a demand by the proper enforcement officer from the judgment obligor for the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, a certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the latter, the amount of the judgment debt under proper receipt directly to the judgment obligee or his authorized representative if present at the time of payment. The lawful fees shall be handed under proper receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn over the said amount within the same day to the clerk of court of the court that issued the writ.[13]

Also, generally, if a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or personal property, or to deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform, any other specific act in connection therewith, and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and the act when so done shall have like effect as if done by the party. If real or personal property is situated within the Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof may by an order divest the title of any party and vest it in others, which shall have the force and effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law.[14] In judgment for the delivery of personal property, the officer shall take possession of the same and forthwith deliver it to the party entitled thereto and satisfy any judgment for money as therein provided.[15]

When it comes to execution of special judgments, i.e., if judgment requires the performance of any act other than those mentioned in Section 9 and Section 10 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a certified copy of the judgment shall be attached to the writ of execution and shall be served by the officer upon the party against whom the same is rendered, or upon any other person required thereby, or by law, to obey the same, and such party or person may be punished for contempt if he disobeys such judgment.

Another conflicts case concern is when the property sought to be levied or garnished is exempt. As a rule, forum law determines which property is exempt from execution. In the case of the Philippines, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the following property, and no other, shall be exempt from execution: (a) The judgment obligor's family home as provided by law, or the homestead in which he resides, and land necessarily used in connection therewith; (b) Ordinary tools and implements personally used by him in his trade, employment, or livelihood; (c) Three horses, or three cows, or three carabaos, or other beasts of burden, such as the judgment obligor may select necessarily used by him in his ordinary occupation; (d) His necessary clothing and articles for ordinary personal use, excluding jewelry; (e) Household furniture and utensils necessary for housekeeping, and used for that purpose by the judgment obligor and his family, such as the judgment obligor may select, of a value not exceeding one hundred thousand pesos; (f) Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for four months; (g) The professional libraries and equipment of judges, lawyers, physicians, pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors, clergymen, teachers, and other professionals, not exceeding three hundred thousand pesos in value; (h) One fishing boat and accessories not exceeding the total value of one hundred thousand pesos owned by a fisherman and by the lawful use of which he earns his livelihood; (i) So much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the judgment obligor for his personal services within the four months preceding the levy as are necessary for the support of his family; (j) Lettered gravestones; (k) Monies, benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in any manner growing out of any life insurance; (l) The right to receive legal support, or money or property obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity from the Government; (m) Properties specially exempted by law.[16] 

Problems may arise if a Philippine court decision is sought to be enforced in a different jurisdiction wherein the property sought to be subjected to execution is exempt under foreign forum law. The reserve is likewise true, i.e., a foreign court decree sought to be recognized and enforced in the Philippines may encounter complications if the property sought to be subjected to execution is exempt under Philippine Rules of Court. The general guideline is that the execution of judgments is a matter of procedure and the law or regulations of the forum must govern

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND ENTRY THEREOF

In the Philippines, if the judgment is satisfied, entry of satisfaction of judgment by the clerk of court will proceed. Satisfaction of a judgment shall be entered by the clerk of court in the court docket, and in the execution book, upon the return of a writ of execution showing the full satisfaction of the judgment, or upon the filing of an admission to the satisfaction of the judgment executed and acknowledged in the same manner as a conveyance of real property by the judgment obligee or by his counsel unless a revocation of his authority is filed, or upon the endorsement of such admission by the judgment obligee or his counsel, on the face of the record of the judgment.[17] Whenever a judgment is satisfied in fact, or otherwise than upon an execution on demand of the judgment obligor, the judgment obligee or his counsel must execute and acknowledge, or indorse an admission of the satisfaction as provided in the last preceding section, and after notice and upon motion the court may order either the judgment obligee or his counsel to do so, or may order the entry of satisfaction to be made without such admission.[18]

Entry of satisfaction of judgment yet again may become an issue if satisfaction of judgment was made in a foreign country. For instance, the laws and rules of a foreign country may prevent the satisfaction sought by a Philippine court’s judgment. Also, proof of satisfaction, if without admission, may give rise to complications as satisfaction is a question of fact. These matters will be discussed in detail in a separate chapter.

In ordinary cases – that is, in cases not involving a foreign element, the issue of enforcement hardly arises. For example, if the parties are Filipinos residing in the Philippines, the prevailing party as a matter of right may move for the court to issue a writ of execution which shall be implemented by the court sheriff against the losing party.

It is said that enforcement of judgment hardly arises in non-conflicts cases but this is said only in theory, of course. In the Philippines, courts take a passive approach in the execution of judgments and it is up to the judgment creditor to look for ways to satisfy the judgment such as but not limited to pointing to whatever real or personal property the judgment debtor may have.

Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, if the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash, certified bank check, or other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee, the officer shall levy upon the properties of the judgment obligor of every kind and nature whatsoever which may be disposed, of for value and not otherwise exempt from execution giving the latter the option to immediately choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient to satisfy the judgment. If the judgment obligor does not exercise the option, the officer shall first levy on the personal properties, if any, and then on the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment. The sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion of the personal or real property of the judgment obligor which has been levied upon. When there is more property of the judgment obligor than is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees, he must sell only so much of the personal or real property as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees. Real property, stocks, shares, debts, credits, and other personal property, or any interest in either real or personal property, may be levied upon in like manner and with like effect as under a writ of attachment.[19]

In this regard, questions may arise as to whether the judgment debtor’s shares of stock in a corporation seated in a foreign country and having no registration or business in the Philippines may be subjected to the process of execution recognized by the Philippine Rules of Court. Considering that the corporation is registered under a foreign state’s laws and has no business or registration in the Philippines, the remedy is not for the court sheriff to go to that foreign country to demand satisfaction of the judgment. Philippine court decrees do not have an automatic force and effect beyond the territorial limits of the Philippines. Hence, it is humbly submitted that the judgment creditor may file the necessary action in the proper foreign forum in order to seek recognition and enforcement of the Philippine court’s judgment. If this is successful, the foreign forum may be inclined to recognize the Philippine court’s judgment (in its eyes, a foreign judgment) and cause its enforcement within the territorial limits of its state.

ENFORCEMENT AND SATISFACTION

In conflicts cases, however, it may occur that the prevailing party will seek the recognition and enforcement of the Philippine court’s judgment in another jurisdiction. Also, the prevailing party in a judgment rendered by a foreign court may wish to have the foreign court decree recognized and enforced in the Philippines. In these cases, the obvious application of private international law can be seen.

For example, in the case of Republic v. Manalo,[20] the Supreme Court was tasked to resolve whether, under the Family Code,[21] a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry. Specifically, Manalo pleaded for the recognition and enforcement of the divorce decree rendered by the Japanese court and for the cancellation of the entry of marriage in the local civil registry so that it would not appear anymore that she is still married to the said Japanese national who is no longer her husband or is no longer married to her; and, if she decides to be remarried, she shall not be bothered and disturbed by said entry of marriage, and to return to the use of her maiden surname.

In another case, Fujiki v. Marinay,[22] the High Court said that a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects the civil status, condition, and legal capacity of its parties. However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not automatic. To extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines, Philippine courts must determine if the foreign judgment is consistent with domestic public policy and other mandatory laws. Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition, and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. This is the rule of lex nationalii in private international law. Thus, the Philippine State may require, for effectivity in the Philippines, recognition by Philippine courts of a foreign judgment affecting its citizen, over whom it exercises personal[23] jurisdiction relating to the status, condition, and legal capacity of such citizen.

In the Fujiki case, the Court went on to explain that 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[24] a foreign judgment as a fact according to the rules of evidence.

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 clear mistake of law or fact.” Thus, Philippine courts exercise a limited review of foreign judgments. Courts are not allowed to delve into the merits of a foreign judgment.

Once a foreign judgment is 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.[25]

Since 1922 in Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee,[26] Philippine courts have recognized foreign divorce decrees between a Filipino and a foreign citizen if they are successfully proven under the rules of evidence. Divorce involves the dissolution of a marriage, but the recognition of a foreign divorce decree does not involve the extended procedure under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC[27] or the rules of ordinary trial. While the Philippines does not have a divorce law, Philippine courts may, however, recognize a foreign divorce decree under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, to capacitate a Filipino citizen to remarry if his/her foreign spouse obtained a divorce decree abroad.[28]

In fact, even foreign arbitral awards may be given recognition and enforcement by Philippine courts under the present state of the law. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004,[29] a municipal law, may be applied in cases wherein a party sues in this jurisdiction to enforce a foreign arbitral award.[30]

If a party seeks to have a decision of a foreign court recognized and/or enforced in the Philippines, there are two schools of thought. First, the party seeking such recognition or enforcement may file a petition for issuance of a writ of execution, in which s/he must prove the existence and authenticity of the foreign judgment. Second, the party so seeking may file a petition for recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment. The prevailing school of thought is the second one but it is humbly submitted that the caption of a pleading does not control the case; rather, it is the prayer or relief sought that determines the propriety of the remedy.

The cause of action in a complaint is not determined by the designation given to it by the parties. The allegations in the body of the complaint define or describe it. The designation or caption is not controlling more than the allegations in the complaint. It is not even an indispensable part of the complaint. In one case, the Supreme Court reminded the trial court that the caption of the complaint is not determinative of the nature of the action. The caption of the pleading should not be the governing factor, but rather the allegations in it should determine the nature of the action, because even without the prayer for a specific remedy, the courts may nevertheless grant the proper relief as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced.[31]

ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

Philippine courts, of course, are not concerned about their judgments being proved and enforced in a different jurisdiction because that is for the foreign forum to manage. The concern of Philippine courts is the recognition and enforcement in the Philippines of foreign judgments for which prevailing parties come to court.

In Mijares v. Rañada,[32] the Supreme Court extensively discussed the underlying principles for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Philippine jurisdiction. According to the Court, there is s no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions that requires the Philippines to 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: 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). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it.[33]

While the definite conceptual parameters of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments have not been authoritatively established, the Court can assert with certainty that such an undertaking is among those generally accepted principles of international law. As earlier demonstrated, there is a widespread practice among states accepting in principle the need for such recognition and enforcement, albeit subject to limitations of varying degrees. The fact that there is no binding universal treaty governing the practice is not indicative of a widespread rejection of the principle, but only a disagreement as to the imposable specific rules governing the procedure for recognition and enforcement.[34]

Aside from the widespread practice, it is indubitable that the procedure for recognition and enforcement is embodied in the rules of law, whether statutory or jurisprudential, adopted in various foreign jurisdictions. In the Philippines, this is evidenced primarily by Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which has existed in its current form since the early 1900s. Certainly, the Philippine legal system has long ago accepted into its jurisprudence and procedural rules the viability of an action for enforcement of foreign judgment, as well as the requisites for such valid enforcement, as derived from internationally accepted doctrines. Again, there may be distinctions as to the rules adopted by each particular state, but they all prescind from the premise that there is a rule of law obliging states to allow for, however generally, the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.[35]

The bare principle has attained the status of opinio juris in international practice. This is a significant proposition, as it acknowledges that the procedure and requisites outlined in Section 48, Rule 39 derive their efficacy not merely from the procedural rule, but by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution. Rules of procedure are promulgated by the Supreme Court, and could very well be abrogated or revised by the high court itself. Yet the Supreme Court is obliged, as are all State components, to obey the laws of the land, including generally accepted principles of international law which form part thereof, such as those ensuring the qualified recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.[36]

According to the Supreme Court, it is an established international legal principle that final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious subject to certain conditions that vary in different countries. In the Philippines, a judgment or final order of a foreign tribunal cannot be enforced simply by execution. Such judgment or order merely creates a right of action, and its non-satisfaction is the cause of action by which a suit can be brought upon for its enforcement. An action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment or final order in this jurisdiction is governed by Rule 39, Section 48 of the Rules of Court.[37]

FOREIGN DIVORCE DECREES

In marriage cases, a Filipino may come to a Philippine court to ask that a foreign divorce decree be recognized and made effective in this jurisdiction.

The basis of this is Article 26 (b) of the Family Code of the Philippines, which states: “Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38. 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 student now imagines what would happen if the Family Code, or any Philippine law, does not provide for what is stated in Article 26 (b) as quoted above. A legal analysis of this would require a lookback to the case of Van Dorn v. Romillo,[38] which was promulgated when the Family Code of the Philippines was yet to take effect and when there was no legal provision with the same substance or intention as the present Article 26 (b). Despite all these, the Supreme Court held that a husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law. Thus, pursuant to the national law of the German who divorced his Filipino wife, the latter was declared no longer the husband of the former. The Court ruled that the German would no longer have any standing to sue regarding what he claimed to be a right to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the divorce decree promulgated in his own country's court pursuant to his national law that allows divorce, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he was ruled estopped from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

Notice that in the Van Dorn case, despite the lack of a municipal law that capacitates a Filipino spouse to remarry in spite of the divorce obtained by the alien spouse, the High Court relied upon the nationality principle and the principles of equity to make said decision. It is said that the Van Dorn case is the reason for the presence of Article 26 (b) of the Family Code of the Philippines.

Despite the lack, however, of Article 26 (b) of the Family Code of the Philippines, some professors argue that foreign divorce decrees must still be recognized for the following reasons, among others. First, there is actually no clear policy against the recognition of a foreign divorce in the Philippines. While it is true that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines declares a policy for the protection marriage, this policy does not squarely address the issue of a foreign divorce decree obtained by a foreign spouse, thereby leaving a Filipino husband or wife “spouseless.” Second, even if there is a clear and positive policy against the recognition and enforcement of foreign divorce decrees in the Philippines, the equitable principles of justice (i.e., against injustice) and the reasonable application of laws (i.e., substantive due process) should outweigh such policy.

Once a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment is filed in a Philippine court, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, otherwise known as “Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments,” primarily governs.

EFFECT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

Under Section 48 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, 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.

Paragraph (a) of Section 48 cited above refers to an in rem judgment, one that binds the thing against the whole world. According to the provision, an in rem judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing.

Paragraph (b) of Section 48, on the other hand, refers to an in personam judgment, one that binds only the parties. According to the same provision, an in personam judgment is presumptive only of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest.

Despite the term used in Paragraph (a), i.e., “conclusive upon the thing,” The last part of Section 48 as cited above states that, either in in rem judgments and in personam judgments, a party may repel or question said judgment by showing proof of lack of jurisdiction, lack of notice, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of fact or law.

If a party who seeks to repel the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment is inclined to adduce proof of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the party of the foreign forum that rendered the judgment sought to be recognized and enforced, the obvious complication is that, from the viewpoint of Philippine laws, jurisdiction is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations in the pleadings. Hence, such party so seeking is required to properly plead and prove the existence of a relevant foreign law on jurisdiction and convince the present forum that the foreign court had no jurisdiction over the case that resulted in the foreign judgment sought to be recognized.

If the ground relied upon in repelling the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment is want of notice, otherwise known as lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, again, complications will arise because the matter of service of summons pertains to the procedural law of the forum that rendered the judgment sought to be enforced. Hence, the party relying on this ground will have to properly plead and prove that the notice or lack of notice to the defendant was in violation of or non-compliant with the alien forum’s expectations of due process.

If the ground relied upon, instead, is clear mistake of law on the party of the foreign court that rendered the judgment sought to be enforced, again, there is a need to prove the existence of the foreign law allegedly misapplied or misinterpreted by the foreign forum in rendering the said judgments.

As to “clear mistake of fact,” as a ground to repel the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, problems may arise because a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment is not supposed to be a relitigation under a Philippine court of the case as if it were a new petition or action.

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,61 as well as respecting the jurisdiction of other states.[39]

To resolve what appears to be a conflict between the last part of Section 48 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on one hand, and, on the other, the rule on limited review on foreign judgments, it is humbly submitted that the term “clear mistake of fact” should be interpreted to mean or to refer to facts that are already stated on the face and in the body of the foreign decision sought to be enforced. Any attempt to go beyond the text of the decision would appear to be a violation of what the Supreme Court has called “limited review on foreign judgments.”[40]

It must be noticed that there is a seeming inconsistency between the first part and the last party of Section 48 of the Rules of Court. The first party says that in-rem judgments of a foreign court are “conclusive” upon the res while the last party states that the foreign judgment may still be repelled by evidence.

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.[41]

It is clear then that it is necessary for a petition to be filed in order to enforce a foreign judgment, even if such judgment has conclusive effect as in the case of in rem actions, if only for the purpose of allowing the losing party an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, and in order for the court to properly determine its efficacy. Consequently, the party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity.It is clear then that it is usually necessary for an action to be filed in order to enforce a foreign judgment, even if such judgment has conclusive effect as in the case of in rem actions, if only for the purpose of allowing the losing party an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, and in order for the court to properly determine its efficacy. Consequently, the party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity.[42]

The rules are silent as to what initiatory procedure must be filed in order to enforce a foreign judgment in the Philippines. Nonetheless, there is no question that the filing of a petition or is an appropriate measure for such purpose. A petition for recognition and enforcement of judgment is not precisely a civil action; properly understood, it is a special proceeding wherein an interested party may file an opposition.

A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right. While the layman may be led to understand that a case to enforce a foreign judgment is essence a vindication of a right, the law student knows that an ordinary civil action is not the proper manner by which a foreign judgment should be recognized. In fact, a special proceeding seeks to establish a right or a particular fact. In this relation, a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment seeks to establish a right or a fact as borne by the foreign court’s decision, either from a “conclusive judgment upon title” or the “presumptive evidence of a right.” Absent perhaps a statutory grant of jurisdiction to a quasi-judicial body, the claim for enforcement of judgment must be brought before the regular courts.[43] Again, the trend in the Philippines is to file a petition for recognition and enforcement.

CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING FROM A FOREIGN DECISION

It would be error to say that an ordinary civil action should be filed to have a foreign decision recognized and enforced in the Philippines, even if the argument proposes that the judgment creditor has a cause of action arising from the foreign judgment iself. First, breach of a right arising from a judgment is not remedied by filing another case; in fact, the remedy, among others, is to seek execution or to invoke the contempt powers of the court. Second, the traditional understanding of a cause of action requires that there be an act or omission and there is a reasonable causal connection between such act or omission the injury produced.

In a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, matters arising from the injury complained has already been decided by a foreign forum. Hence, noncompliance with the foreign decision is theoretically not an injury to the judgment creditor but an affront to the dignity and majesty of the court that rendered the judgment. Of course, others would be comfortable to say that the deliberate and willful noncompliance by the judgment debtor with the foreign decision may constitute an abuse of right or some such tort but there is not enough discussion regarding this view.

Even the Supreme Court appears confused and in a fairly-recent 2015 case used the terms “action,” “cause of action” and “complaint” in relation to the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. According to the Court, there are distinctions, nuanced but discernible, between the cause of action arising from the enforcement of a foreign judgment, and that arising from the facts or allegations that occasioned the foreign judgment. They may pertain to the same set of facts, but there is an essential difference in the right-duty correlatives that are sought to be vindicated. For example, in a complaint for damages against a tortfeasor, the cause of action emanates from the violation of the right of the complainant through the act or omission of the respondent. On the other hand, in a “complaint” for the enforcement of a foreign judgment awarding damages from the same tortfeasor, for the violation of the same right through the same manner of action, the cause of action derives not from the tortious act but from the foreign judgment itself.[44]

More importantly, the matters for proof are different. Using the above example, before the forum’s issuance of the foreign judgment, the plaintiff in the proceedings before the foreign court will have to establish the tortious act or omission committed by the tortfeasor, who in turn is allowed to rebut these factual allegations or prove extenuating circumstances. Extensive litigation is thus conducted on the facts, and from there the right to and amount of damages are assessed. On the other hand, 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.[45]

As stated in Section 48 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the actionable issues are generally restricted to a review of jurisdiction of the foreign court, the service of personal notice, collusion, fraud, or mistake of fact or law. The limitations on review [are] in consonance with a strong and pervasive policy in all legal systems to limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues. Otherwise known as the policy of preclusion, it seeks to protect party expectations resulting from previous litigation, to safeguard against the harassment of defendants, to insure that the task of courts not be increased by never-ending litigation of the same disputes, and - in a larger sense - to promote what Lord Coke in the Ferrer's Case of 1599 stated to be the goal of all law: “rest and quietness.” If every judgment of a foreign court were reviewable on the merits, the plaintiff would be forced back on his/her original cause of action, rendering immaterial the previously concluded litigation.[46]

If a party is successful in having a foreign judgment recognized in the Philippines through the proper proceeding, a writ of execution, if necessary, may forthwith be requested in order to enforce not the foreign judgment but the judgment of the Philippine court which recognized the foreign judgment. This is why, in the Philippines, for example, while Philippine laws do not recognize divorce, a foreign divorce decree may be recognized under Article 26 of the Family Code by a court in this jurisdiction and it is this recognition, not the foreign divorce decree, that is enforced. In other words, Philippine courts recognize in a very limited sense the divorce law of another state by simply recognizing and enforcing a foreign divorce decree in accordance with the above-stated provision of the Family Code.

Philippine courts in the strictest sense have no power to enforce the judgment of a foreign court whose effects have no reach into the Philippine territory. Nonetheless, they may recognize a foreign judgment in line with the principles of international cooperation and comity and enforce this recognition within their territorial limits. In other words, Philippine courts have the power to enforce their recognition of a foreign court’s judgment, not the foreign judgment itself.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON FOREIGN JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT

There exists a Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,[47] which is one of the conventions in private international law, spearheaded by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. According to the said Convention, a decision rendered in one of the Contracting States shall be entitled to recognition and enforcement in another Contracting State under the terms of the Convention: (a) if the decision was given by a court considered to have jurisdiction within the meaning of this Convention; and (b) if it is no longer subject to ordinary forms of review in the State of origin. In addition, to be enforceable in the State addressed, a decision must be enforceable in the State of origin.[48]

Under Article 5 of the said Convention, recognition or enforcement of a foreign decision may nevertheless be refused in any of the following cases: (a) if recognition or enforcement of the foreign decision is manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the forum state or if the foreign decision resulted from proceedings incompatible with the requirements of due process of law or if, in the circumstances, either party had no adequate opportunity fairly to present his case; (b) if the decision was obtained by fraud in the procedural sense; (c) if proceedings between the same parties, based on the same facts and having the same purpose (1) are pending before a court of the state addressed and those proceedings were the first to be instituted, or (2) have resulted in a decision by a court of the state addressed, or (3) have resulted in a decision by a court of another State which would be entitled to recognition and enforcement under the law of the State addressed.

It must be noted that the Philippine State has been a member of the Hague Conference on Private International Law since 14-VII-2010.

[1] 637 Phil. 504, 510-511 (2010).

[2] See also Vitug v. Abuda, 776 Phil. 540 (2016); Spouses Silos v. Philippine National Bank, 738 Phil. 156 (2014).

[3] G.R. No. 238041, February 15, 2022.

[4] Section 5. Order of trial. — Subject to the provisions of section 2 of Rule 31, and unless the court for special reasons otherwise directs, the trial shall be limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order and shall proceed as follows: (a) The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his complaint; (b) The defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaints; (c) The third-party defendant if any, shall adduce evidence of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and fourth-party complaint; (d) The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall adduce evidence of the material facts pleaded by them; (e) The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross-claim has been pleaded, shall adduce evidence in support of their defense, in the order to be prescribed by the court; (f) The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting evidence only, unless the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice, permits them to adduce evidence upon their original case; and (g) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision, unless the court directs the parties to argue or to submit their respective memoranda or any further pleadings. If several defendants or third-party defendants, and so forth, having separate defenses appear by different counsel, the court shall determine the relative order of presentation of their evidence. (Rule 30 of the Rules of Court)

[5] In Re Testate Estate of Bambao, G.R. No. 237449, December 02, 2020.

[6] See Thayer, J. B. (1889). Presumptions and the Law of Evidence. Harvard Law Review, 141-166. See also Encyclopædia Britannica (no date) Jurisdiction, Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/conflict-of-laws/Jurisdiction. Last accessed: September 03, 2023).

[7] Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.

[8] G.R. No. 187847, June 30, 2021.

[9] Article 1039 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

[10] Section 1 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

[11] Section 6 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

[12] Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

[13] Section 9 (a) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

[14] Section 10 (a) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

[15] Section 10 (e) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

[16] Section 13 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

[17] Section 44 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

[18] Section 45 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

[19] Section 9 (b) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

[20] G.R. No. 221029. April 24, 2018.

[21] Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

[22] G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013.

[23] Note that, in the original text of the decision in Fujiku v. Marinay, the Supremme Court used the term “personal jurisdiction” when speaking of the status, condition or legal capacity of persons. However, it is humbly submitted that the proper term should be “jurisdiction over the res.”

[24] The text of the original decision in Fujiki v. Marinay may mislead the student that the only option of the Philippine Court is to recognize the foreign judgment. It must be emphasized here that, for good and justifiable reasons discussed in this book, Philippine courts may refuse to recognize a foreign court’s judgment and refuse to give it enforcement in the Philippines.

[25] Fujiki v. Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013.

[26] 43 Phil. 43 (1922).

[27] Rule On Declaration Of Absolute Nullity Of Void Mariages And Annulment Of Voidable Marriages, March 4, 2003.

[28] Fujiki v. Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013.

[29] Republic Act No. 9285, April 2, 2004.

[30] Tuna Processing v. Philippine Kingford, G.R. No. 185582, February 29, 2012.

[31] Spouses Munsalud v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 167181, December 23, 2008.

[32] 495 Phil. 372, 395-397 (2005), cited in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015 G.R. No. 167052.

[33] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015 G.R. No. 167052.

[34] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015 G.R. No. 167052.

[35] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015 G.R. No. 167052.

[36] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015.

[37] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015.

[38] G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985.

[39] Fujiki v. Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013.

[40]  Fujiki v. Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013.

[41] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015.

[42] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015.

[43] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015.

[44] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015.

[45] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015.

[46] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015.

[47] February 1971.

[48] Article 4 of 16: Convention of 1 February 1971 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. Entry Into Force: 20-VIII-1979.