OUTLINE:

Bases
Distinction
Philippine Conflict Rules
Requisites and Defenses NOTES ON
Value and ConclusivenessRECOGNITION and ENFORCEMENT
Jurisdiction OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT
Procedure
By:

ATTY. WALDEMAR R. GRAVADOR

USC-Law

Topic Notes and Cases

TT

Bases of Recognition and Enforcement In Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M)

of Foreign Judgment Berhad v. Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court explained why we ought
to give respect and therefore, enforce a
foreign judgment, thus:

“Generally, in the absence of a

special compact, no sovereign is
bound to give effect within its
dominion to a judgment rendered
by a tribunal of another country;
however, 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.” ( G.R. No.
110263, [July 20, 2001], 414
PHIL 13-32)
 2

St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd. v.

Grand International Airways, Inc.,
reaffirmed that, under the rules of
comity, utility, and convenience, nations
have established a usage among
civilized states by which final judgments
of foreign courts of competent
jurisdiction are reciprocally respected:

“Generally, in the absence of a

special contract, no sovereign is
bound to give effect within its
dominion to a judgment rendered
by a tribunal of another country;
however, under the rules of
comity, utility and convenience,
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. 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.
(G.R. No. 140288, [October 23,
2006], 535 PHIL 757-765)

The foregoing principle was also earlier

adverted to in Mijares v. Ranada,
 3

wherein the court even observed that the

same was prominently affirmed in the
leading American case of Hilton v. Guyot
18 and expressly recognized in our
jurisprudence beginning with Ingenholl v.
Walter E. Olsen & Co. (Mijares v.
Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, [April 12,
2005], 495 PHIL 372-399)

Recognition of Enforcement of
Distinction between Recognition and Foreign Judgment Foreign Judgment
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
In recognition of A plaintiff asks for
foreign judgment, a a positive and
foreign judgment is affirmative relief
allowed to be consisting in asking
presented as a the court to make
defense in an effective a foreign
action, e.g. a judgment.
person who is
sued in a
Philippine court
and who wishes to
 4

have the benefit of

a judgment This would
rendered in an necessitate a
American court separate civil
may plead such action or special
judgment in his proceeding
answer, thereby
making an issue
upon the question Thus:
of the validity of
the
judgment.(Gorayeb “The complaint
v. Hashim, G.R. therefore appears
No. 25577, [March to be one of the
3, 1927], 50 PHIL enforcement of the
22-30) Hongkong
judgment because
it prays for the
grant of the
Since it is or it may affirmative relief
be presented as a given by said
defense to an foreign judgment.
action, no action or
special proceeding Although petitioner
is necessary asserts that it is
merely seeking the
recognition of its
claims based on
Does not the contract sued
necessarily imply upon and not the
recognition enforcement of the
Hongkong
judgment, it should
be noted that in the
prayer of the
complaint,
petitioner simply
copied the
Hongkong
judgment with
 5

respect to private
respondent's
liability. (Hang
Lung Bank, Ltd. v.
Saulog, G.R. No.
73765, [August 26,
1991], 278 PHIL
155-165)

In an action to
enforce a foreign
judgment, it implies
a relief asking for
the recognition of
the foreign
judgment

Philippine Conflicts Rule on Recognition The rules of court provision pertaining to

and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment enforcement of foreign judgment is
provided for under and can be found in
Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court:

SECTION 48. 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:
Action in
rem
(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
Action
in
(b) In case of a judgment or final order
personam against a person, the judgment or final
order is presumptive evidence of a right
 6

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. (50a)
(Rules of Court, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure As Amended, [April 8, 1997])

As provided under the aforequoted

provision, there is a distinction between
the effect of a foreign judgment arising
from an action in rem and that arising
from an action in personam.

In 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 either of those cases

(whether action in personam or in rem)
there are defenses that may be
interposed thereto.

In either of those cases, the foreign

judgment is susceptible to impeachment
in our local courts on the grounds of
WN want of jurisdiction or notice to the
CFC party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact.
 7

Recognition and Enforcement of For a foreign judgment to be recognized

Foreign Judgment: Requisites and and enforced in our jurisdiction, the
Defenses petitioner must establish the following
essential requisites: VCMP

1. It must be a valid judgment, i.e.

the court adjudging the same
must have jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties;

2. It must be rendered by a court of

competent jurisdiction after a
fair trial;

3. The judgment must not be a

clear mistake of fact or law;

4. It must not contravene a public

policy

Mijares v. Ranada mentions the

requisites for the recognition and
enforceability of foreign judgments as
well as the defenses thereto:

“The requisites and exceptions as

delineated under Section 48 are but
a restatement of generally accepted
principles of international law.
Section 98 of The Restatement,
Second, Conflict of Laws, states
that "a valid judgment rendered in
a foreign nation after a fair trial in
a contested proceeding will be
recognized in the United States,"
and on its face, the term "valid"
brings into play requirements such
 8

notions as valid jurisdiction over

the subject matter and parties.
Similarly, the notion that fraud or
collusion may preclude the
enforcement of a foreign
judgment finds affirmation with
foreign jurisprudence and
commentators, as well as the
doctrine that the foreign judgment
must not constitute "a clear
mistake of law or fact." And
finally, it has been recognized that
"public policy" as a defense to
the recognition of judgments
serves as an umbrella for a variety
of concerns in international practice
which may lead to a denial of
recognition.” (G.R. No. 139325,
[April 12, 2005], 495 PHIL 372-399)

1. Contravenes Public Policy

2. Lack of jurisdiction
Defenses (in an action for
3. (Extrinsic) Fraud enforcement of foreign judgment)

Public Policy is contravened

One of the viable defenses against the

enforcement of a foreign judgement is
the so-called public policy defense.

This defense is a “safety valve” and

arises when, in the words of the
Supreme Court in Mabuhay Holdings
Corp. v. Sembcorp Logistics Limited
G.R. No. 212734, [December 5, 2018], it
would be impossible for a legal system
to recognize an award and enforce it
without abandoning the very fundaments
on which it is based.
 9

The nature and basis of this “defense”

(in enforcement of foreign judgment
cases) was explained and articulated by
the Supreme Court again in the case of
Mijares v. Ranada, thus:

“The viability of the public policy

defense against the enforcement of
a foreign judgment has been
recognized in this jurisdiction. This
defense allows for the application
of local standards in reviewing the
foreign judgment, especially when
such judgment creates only a
presumptive right, as it does in
cases wherein the judgment is
against a person.

The defense is also recognized

within the international sphere, as
many civil law nations adhere to a
broad public policy exception which
may result in a denial of recognition
when the foreign court, in the light
of the choice-of-law rules of the
recognizing court, applied the
wrong law to the case. The public
policy defense can safeguard
against possible abuses to the easy
resort to offshore litigation if it can
be demonstrated that the original
claim is noxious to our
constitutional values.”
(underscoring supplied) (Mijares v.
Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, [April
12, 2005], 495 PHIL 372-399)
 10

Lack of jurisdiction

This defense of lack of jurisdiction

applies both in action in rem but
especially in an action in personam,
where the foreign judgment is, according
to our rules, presumptive evidence
only of rights between the parties, such
(foreign judgment) may be assailed by
proving lack of jurisdiction as held by the
Supreme Court in Mercantile Insurance
Co., Inc. v. Yi, G.R. No. 234501, [March
18, 2019])

However, where an issue of jurisdiction

is raised and the resolution thereof
would involve an interpretation of a rule
of procedure (e.g. regularity in the
service of summons), the issue should
be resolved in the light of the lex fori or
the internal law of the forum. Thus:

“In disputing the foreign judgment,

MIC argues that there was want of
notice to it as there was no proper
service of summons in the trial
before the California court.

On this note, we highlight 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,
30 which is the State of California
in this case.(Mercantile Insurance
Co., Inc. v. Yi, G.R. No. 234501,
[March 18, 2019])
 11

There must be proof (in accordance with

the rules) about what the foreign law (or,
the law of procedure) is on the matter.
Otherwise, if there is no proof to that
effect, it will be deemed as similar to our
rules on the basis of the application of
the doctrine of processual presumption,
thus:

“In the absence of proof of the

Hong Kong law on service of
summons, the presumption of
identity or similarity or the so-
called processual presumption
shall come into play. It will thus be
presumed that the Hong Kong law
on the matter is similar to the
Philippine law. (Asiavest Limited v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
128803, [September 25, 1998],
357 PHIL 536-558)

Fraud

Fraud, to hinder the enforcement within

this jurisdiction of a foreign judgment,
must be extrinsic in character, i.e., fraud
based on facts not controverted or
resolved in the case where judgment is
rendered, or that which would go to the
jurisdiction of the court or would deprive
the party against whom judgment is
rendered a chance to defend the action
to which he has a meritorious case or
defense. (Phil. Aluminum Wheels, Inc.
v. FASGI Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No.
137378, [October 12, 2000], 396 PHIL
 12

893-914)

Value and Conclusiveness of Foreign In our jurisdiction, a judgment or final

Judgment order of a foreign tribunal 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.
(Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. v. Yi,
G.R. No. 234501, [March 18, 2019])

A foreign judgment will not be reviewed

by the Philippine courts, although a
proceeding may still be had but only for
the purpose of affording the opposing
party the opportunity to assail the
judgment on specified grounds provided
for under Section 48, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court, i.e. want of jurisdiction,
want of notice, collusion, fraud, and clear
mistake of law or fact.

There will be no trial for the purpose of

reviewing and re-evaluating the evidence
already then presented.

“In the recognition of foreign

judgments, Philippine courts are
incompetent to substitute their
judgment on how a case was
decided under foreign law. They
cannot decide on the "family rights
and duties, or on the status,
condition and legal capacity" of the
foreign citizen who is a party to the
foreign judgment. Thus, Philippine
courts are limited to the question
of whether to extend the effect of
a foreign judgment in the
 13

Philippines.

In a foreign judgment relating to the

status of a marriage involving a
citizen of a foreign country,
Philippine courts only decide
whether to extend its effect to the
Filipino party, under the rule of lex
nationalii expressed in Article 15 of
the Civil Code.

For this purpose, Philippine courts

will only determine (1) whether the
foreign judgment is inconsistent with
an overriding public policy in the
Philippines; and (2) whether any
alleging party is able to prove an
extrinsic ground to repel the foreign
judgment, i.e., want of jurisdiction,
want of notice to the party, collusion,
fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
If there is neither inconsistency with
public policy nor adequate proof to
repel the judgment, Philippine courts
should, by default, recognize the
foreign judgment as part of the
comity of nations. Section 48 (b),
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states
that the foreign judgment is already
"presumptive evidence of a right
between the parties." Upon
recognition of the foreign judgment,
this right becomes conclusive and
the judgment serves as the basis for
the correction or cancellation of
entry in the civil registry. (Fujiki v.
Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, [June 26,
2013], 712 PHIL 524-558)
 14

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

[April 12, 2005] further explains the
nature of the proceeding for enforcement
of a foreign judgment:

“As stated in Section 48, Rule 39,

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 is 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.”

However, our courts do not take judicial

notice of foreign judgment (including the
 15

particular rule of procedure), thus, there

is a necessity to plead and prove the
same if its non-compliance is interposed
as a defense in an action for
enforcement of foreign judgment:

“The starting point in any

recognition of a foreign divorce
judgment is the acknowledgment
that our courts do not take
judicial notice of foreign
judgments and laws. Justice
Herrera explained that, as a rule,
"no sovereign is bound to give
effect within its dominion to a
judgment rendered by a tribunal of
another country." This means that
the foreign judgment and its
authenticity must be proven as
facts under our rules on
evidence, together with the
alien's applicable national law to
show the effect of the judgment
on the alien himself or herself.
The recognition may be made in an
action instituted specifically for the
purpose or in another action where
a party invokes the foreign decree
as an integral aspect of his claim or
defense.” (Republic v. Cote, G.R.
No. 212860 , [March 14, 2018])

As to the legal effect of a foreign

judgment in an action in rem and one in
personam, our rules and the decisions
interpreting thereto makes a distinction,
thus:

“There is an evident distinction

 16
Jurisdiction over Action for Enforcement While it seems to be settled that it
of Foreign Judgment
1. Complaint- initiates its enforcement
2. Assailing the judgment- not necessary
to initiate a separate action, mere opportu- has for its purpose allowing the losing
nity to oppose/challenge would suffice
between a foreign judgment in an
action in rem and one in
personam. For an action in rem,
Sec.
the foreign judgment is deemed 48
conclusive upon the title to the Rule 39
thing, while in an action in ROC
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. (Mijares v.
Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, [April
12, 2005], 495 PHIL 372-399)
necessary that an action shall be filed to
enforce a foreign judgment (even if such
judgment has conclusive effect) and it
party an opportunity to challenge the
same on the grounds provided for under
Section 48, Rule 39), the corollary
question is what is the appropriate
 17

action to enforce the same and which

has jurisdiction over the same?

This matter was squarely addressed by

the Supreme Court in Mijares v. Ranada,
with the court pronouncing that the filing
of a complaint initiates its (foreign
judgment) enforcement, thus:

“The rules are silent as to what

initiatory procedure must be
undertaken in order to enforce a
foreign judgment in the
Philippines. But there is no
question that the filing of a civil
complaint is an appropriate
measure for such purpose. A civil
action is one by which a party
sues another for the enforcement
or protection of a right, and
clearly an action to enforce a
foreign judgment is in essence a
vindication of a right prescinding
either from a "conclusive
judgment upon title" or the
"presumptive evidence of a right."
(G.R. No. 139325, [April 12,
2005], 495 PHIL 372-399)

While this court has given the effect of

res judicata to foreign judgments in
several cases, it was only after the
parties (opposed to the judgment) had
been given ample opportunity to repel
them on grounds allowed under the law.

To assail the judgment, it is not

necessary for this purpose to initiate a
separate action or proceeding. What is
 18

essential is that there is opportunity to

challenge the foreign judgment, in order
for the court to properly determine its
efficacy. (Philsec Investment Corp. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103493,
[June 19, 1997], 340 PHIL 232-244)

Procedure for Enforcement of Foreign In enforcing a foreign judgment, the one

Judgment seeking to enforce the same must
Plead and prove:
contend with the question of how to
1. Foreign judgment and prove a foreign judgement and if a right
2. Foreign law to be enforced is based on a foreign law
then, not only the judgment but the
foreign law as well must and should also
be pleaded and proven. Our local courts
do not take judicial notice of the foreign
judgment and the law.

The following cases are illustrative of the

kind of proof (and the manner of
adducing and proving the same):

1. The Certificate of Acceptance of

the Report of Divorce was
accompanied by an
Authentication issued by Consul
Bryan Dexter B. Lao of the
Embassy of the Philippines in
Tokyo, Japan, certifying that
Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular
Service Division, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Japan was an
official in and for Japan. The
Authentication further certified
 19

that he was authorized to sign the

Certificate of Acceptance of the
Report of Divorce and that his
signature in it was genuine.
Applying Rule 132, Section 24,
the Certificate of Acceptance of
the Report of Divorce is
admissible as evidence of the fact
of divorce between petitioner and
respondent. The Regional Trial
Court established that according
to the national law of Japan, a
divorce by agreement "becomes
effective by notification." 57
Considering that the Certificate of
Acceptance of the Report of
Divorce was duly authenticated,
the divorce between petitioner
and respondent was validly
obtained according to
respondent's national law.
(Racho v. Seiichi Tanaka, G.R.
No. 199515, [June 25, 2018])

Existence of a foreign law cannot merely

be established or deemed proven by a
mere submission of a photocopy

2. While Marlyn and Akira's divorce

decree was not disputed by the
OSG, a recognition of the divorce,
however, could not extend as a
matter of course.

Under prevailing rules and

jurisprudence, the submission of
the decree should come with
adequate proof of the foreign law
that allows it. The Japanese law
on divorce must then be
 20

sufficiently proved. "Because our

courts do not take judicial notice
of foreign laws and judgment, our
law on evidence requires that
both the divorce decree and the
national law of the alien must be
alleged and proven x x x like any
other fact."

xxx xxx xxx

Marlyn failed to satisfy the

foregoing requirements. The
records only include a photocopy
of excerpts of The Civil Code of
Japan, merely stamped
LIBRARY, Japan Information and
Culture Center, Embassy of
Japan, 2627 Roxas Boulevard,
Pasay City 1300. This clearly
does not constitute sufficient
compliance with the rules on
proof of Japan's law on divorce. |||
(Nullada v. Civil Registrar of
Manila, G.R. No. 224548,
[January 23, 2019])

Divorce Report was issued by the Office

of the Mayor of Fukuyama City

3. Records show that the Divorce

Report is what the Government of
Japan issued to petitioner and her
husband when they applied for
divorce. There was no "divorce
judgment" to speak of because
the divorce proceeding was not
coursed through Japanese courts
but through the Office of the
 21

Mayor of Fukuyama City in

Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan. In
any event, since the Divorce
Report was issued by the
Office of the Mayor of
Fukuyama City, the same is
deemed an act of an official
body in Japan. By whatever
name it is called, the Divorce
Report is clearly the equivalent of
the "Divorce Decree" in Japan,
hence, the best evidence of the
fact of divorce obtained by
petitioner and her former
husband. (Moraña v. Republic,
G.R. No. 227605, [December 5,
2019])

How to prove a foreign law?

Philippine courts do not take judicial

notice of foreign judgments and laws.
They must be proven as fact under our
rules on evidence. (Arreza v. Toyo, G.R.
No. 213198, [July 1, 2019])

In this connection, please note of the

following amendment under Section 24,
Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence, thus:

“If the office in which the record is

kept is in a foreign country, which is
a contracting party to a treaty or
convention to which the Philippines
is also a party, or considered a
public document under such treaty
or convention pursuant to
paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof,
the certificate or its equivalent shall
 22

be in the form prescribed by such

treaty or convention subject to
reciprocity granted to public
documents originating from the
Philippines. (2019 Proposed
Amendments to the Revised Rules
on Evidence, A.M. No. 19-08-15-
SC (Resolution), [August 10, 2019])

and the legal effect thereof:

“A document that is accompanied

by a certificate or its equivalent
may be presented in evidence
without further proof, the certificate
or its equivalent being prima facie
evidence of the due execution and
genuineness of the document
involved. The certificate shall not
be required when a treaty or
convention between a foreign
country and the Philippines has
abolished the requirement, or has
exempted the document itself from
this formality.” (24a) (2019
Proposed Amendments to the
Revised Rules on Evidence, A.M.
No. 19-08-15-SC (Resolution),
[August 10, 2019])

Incidentally, there is a judicial precedent

to the effect that a foreign law may be
proven and established through the
testimony of a foreign attorney-at-law:

“The testimony of an attorney-at-

law of San Francisco, California,
under oath, who quotes verbatim a
section of the California Civil Code
 23

and states that said section was in

force at the time the obligations of
defendant to plaintiff were incurred
is sufficient to establish the fact
that the section in question was
the law of the State of California
on the dates referred to. A reading
of sections 300 and 301 of our
Code of Civil Procedure will
convince one that these sections
do not exclude the presentation of
other competent evidence to prove
the existence of a foreign law.
(Willamette Iron & Steel Works v.
Muzzal, G.R. No. 42538, [May 21,
1935], 61 PHIL 471-476)

This exception (established by

jurisprudence) was again recognized
and given judicial imprimatur by the
Supreme Court in the 2019 case of
Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. v. Yi.
Citing Willamette Iron, the Supreme
Court ruled:

“An exception to this rule, however,

is recognized in the cases of
Willamette Iron & Steel Works v.
Muzzal, and Manufacturers
Hanover Trust Co. v. Guerrero, 33
wherein we emphatically ruled that
the testimony under oath of an
attorney-at-law of a foreign state,
who quoted verbatim the
applicable law and who stated
that the same was in force at the
time the obligations were
contracted, was sufficient
evidence to establish the
existence of said law. In
 24

Manufacturers Hanover Trust, we

stated that it is necessary to state
the specific law on which the claim
was based.

In this case, Atty. Robert G. Dyer

(Atty. Dyer), member of the bar of
the State of California for more than
30 years, testified as to the
applicable law related to summons.
In detail, he stated the exact
pertinent provision under the
California Code of Civil
Procedure, to wit:

Section 415.40. A summons may

be served on a person outside this
state in any manner provided by
this article or by sending a copy of
the summons and of the complaint
to the person to be served by first-
class mail, postage prepaid,
requiring a return receipt. Service of
a summons by this form of mail is
deemed complete on the 10th day
after such mailing.

Indeed, pursuant to the above-

proven law in the State of
California, the service of summons
by mail to MIC, an entity outside its
state, was valid. As such law was
sufficiently alleged and proven, it is
beyond the province of this Court's
authority to pass upon the issue as
to the factual circumstances
relating to the proper service of
summons upon MIC in the case
before the State of California.
 25

(Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. v.

Yi, G.R. No. 234501, [March 18,
2019])

What is the appropriate action or

proceeding to enforce a foreign
judgment?

1. In Fujiki v. Marinay, a special

proceeding for cancellation or
correction of entries in the civil
registry under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court shall be had to
cause the changes in the record
in the civil registry brought about
by a divorce decree which is
recognized in this jurisdiction.

“Since the recognition of a

foreign judgment only
requires proof of fact of the
judgment, it may be made in
a special proceeding for
cancellation or correction of
entries in the civil registry
under Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court. Rule 1, Section 3 of
the Rules of Court provides
that "[a] special proceeding is
a remedy by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a
right, or a particular fact."
Rule 108 creates a remedy to
rectify facts of a person's life
which are recorded by the
State pursuant to the Civil
Register Law or Act No.
3753. These are facts of
public consequence such as
 26

birth, death or marriage, 66

which the State has an
interest in recording. As
noted by the Solicitor
General, in Corpuz v. Sto.
Tomas this Court declared
that "[t]he recognition of the
foreign divorce decree may
be made in a Rule 108
proceeding itself, as the
object of special proceedings
(such as that in Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court) is
precisely to establish the
status or right of a party or a
particular fact.”| (Fujiki v.
Marinay, G.R. No. 196049,
[June 26, 2013], 712 PHIL
524-558)

2. The same ruling was made in

Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas as to the
appropriate procedure in a
situation wherein a foreign
divorce is validly obtained and in
making the corresponding
changes in the entry in the
records of the Office of the Civil
Registrar pursuant thereto:

“As a matter of
"housekeeping" concern, we
note that the Pasig City Civil
Registry Office has already
recorded the divorce decree
on Gerbert and Daisylyn's
marriage certificate based on
the mere presentation of the
decree. We consider the
 27

recording to be legally
improper; hence, the need
to draw attention of the
bench and the bar to what
had been done.

xxx xxx
xxx

But while the law requires the

entry of the divorce decree in
the civil registry, the law and
the submission of the decree
by themselves do not ipso
facto authorize the decree's
registration.

The law should be read in

relation with the requirement
of a judicial recognition of the
foreign judgment before it
can be given res judicata
effect. In the context of the
present case, no judicial
order as yet exists
recognizing the foreign
divorce decree. Thus, the
Pasig City Civil Registry
Office acted totally out of turn
and without authority of law
when it annotated the
Canadian divorce decree on
Gerbert and Daisylyn's
marriage certificate, on the
strength alone of the foreign
decree presented by Gerbert.

xxx xxx
xxx
 28

We hasten to point out,

however, that this ruling
should not be construed as
requiring two separate
proceedings for the
registration of a foreign
divorce decree in the civil
registry — one for
recognition of the foreign
decree and another
specifically for cancellation of
the entry under Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court. The
recognition of the foreign
divorce decree may be made
in a Rule 1 proceeding itself,
as the object of special
proceedings (such as that in
Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court) is precisely to
establish the status or right of
a party or a particular fact.
Moreover, Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court can serve
as the appropriate
adversarial proceeding by
which the applicability of
the foreign judgment can
be measured and tested in
terms of jurisdictional
infirmities, want of notice
to the party, collusion,
fraud, or clear mistake of
law or fact. (Corpuz v. Sto.
Tomas, G.R. No. 186571,
[August 11, 2010], 642 PHIL
420-438)

3. In Mijares v. Ranada, the action

for enforcement of a foreign
 29

judgment is within and under the

jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Courts.

In Mijares, although the action

involved therein is not exactly one
incapable of pecuniary estimation,
only the blanket filing fee of
minimal amount is required
nonetheless. The court explained:

“An examination of
Section 19(6), B.P. 129
reveals that the instant
complaint for enforcement
of a foreign judgment,
even if capable of
pecuniary estimation,
would fall under the
jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts,
thus negating the fears of
the petitioners.

Indeed, an examination of
the provision indicates that it
can be relied upon as
jurisdictional basis with
respect to actions for
enforcement of foreign
judgments, provided that no
other court or office is
vested jurisdiction over such
complaint:

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil

cases.

— Regional Trial Courts shall

exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
 30

xxx xxx xxx

(6) In all cases not within the

exclusive jurisdiction of any
court, tribunal, person or body
exercising jurisdiction or any
court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions.

Thus, we are comfortable in

asserting the obvious, that
the complaint to enforce the
US District Court judgment
is one capable of pecuniary
estimation. But at the same
time, it is also an action
based on judgment against
an estate, thus placing it
beyond the ambit of Section
7(a) of Rule 141.

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

As crafted, Rule 141 of the

Rules of Civil Procedure
avoids unreasonableness,
as it recognizes that the
subject matter of an action
for enforcement of a foreign
judgment is the foreign
judgment itself, and not the
right-duty correlatives that
resulted in the foreign
judgment. In this particular
circumstance, given that the
complaint is lodged against
an estate and is based on
 31

the US District Court's Final

Judgment, this foreign
judgment may, for purposes
of classification under the
governing procedural rule,
be deemed as subsumed
under Section 7(b)(3) of
Rule 141, i.e., within the
class of "all other actions not
involving property." Thus,
only the blanket filing fee of
minimal amount is required.
(underscoring supplied)
(Mijares v. Ranada, G.R.
No. 139325, [April 12, 2005],
495 PHIL 372-399)

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-