ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD v.

CA
G.R. No. 110263
July 20, 2001
PARTIES
The petitioner Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad is a corporation organized under
the laws of Malaysia while private respondent Philippine National Construction
Corporation is a corporation duly incorporated and existing under Philippine laws.
FACTS
In 1985, the High Court of Malaysia ordered the Philippine National Construction
Corporation (PNCC) to pay $5.1 million to Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad. This
was the result of a recovery suit filed by Asiavest against PNCC in Malaysia for PNCCs
failure to complete a construction project there despite due payment from Asiavest.
Despite demand, PNCC failed to comply with the judgment in Malaysia hence Asiavest
filed a complaint for the enforcement of the Malaysian ruling against PNCC in the
Philippines. The case was filed with the Pasig RTC which eventually denied the
complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Asiavest appealed. In its defense, PNCC alleged that the foreign judgment cannot be
enforced here because of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to PNCC, collusion and/or
fraud, and there is a clear mistake of law or fact. Asiavest assailed the arguments of
PNCC on the ground that PNCCs counsel participated in all the proceedings in the
Malaysian Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Malaysian Court judgment should be enforced against PNCC in the
Philippines.

HELD
Yes. PNCC failed to prove and substantiate its bare allegations of want of jurisdiction,
want of notice, collusion and/or fraud, and mistake of fact. On the contrary, Asiavest was
able to present evidence as to the validity of the proceedings that took place in Malaysia.
Asiavest presented the certified and authenticated copies of the judgment and the order
issued by the Malaysian Court. It also presented correspondences between Asiavests
lawyers and PNCCs lawyers in and out of court which belied PNCCs allegation that the
Malaysian court never acquired jurisdiction over it. PNCCs allegation of fraud is not
sufficient too, further, it never invoked the same in the Malaysian Court.

The Supreme Court notes, to assail a foreign judgment the party must present evidence of
want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law
or fact. Otherwise, the judgment enjoys the presumption of validity so long as it was duly
certified and authenticated. In this case, PNCC failed to present the required evidence.