VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 397 * SECOND DIVISION.

Mijares vs. Ranada 398

G.R. No. 139325. April 12, 2005. *
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES,
Mijares vs. Ranada
HILDA B. NARCISCO, SR., MARIANI DIMARANAN, SFIC,
to be filed in order to enforce a foreign judgment, even if such
and JOEL C. LAMANGAN, in their behalf and on behalf of the
judgment has conclusive effect as in the case of in rem actions, if
Class Plaintiffs in Class Action No. MDL 840, United States only for the purpose of allowing the losing party an opportunity to
District Court of Hawaii, petitioners, vs. HON. SANTIAGO challenge the foreign judgment, and in order for the court to
JAVIER RANADA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of properly determine its efficacy. Consequently, the party attacking a
Branch 137, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, and the foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of
ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, through its court its validity.
appointed legal representatives in Class Action MDL 840,
Same; Same; Same; Same; The actionable issues are generally
United States District Court of Hawaii, namely: Imelda R.
restricted to a review of jurisdiction of the foreign court, the service
Marcos and Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., respondents. of personal notice, collusion, fraud, or mistake of fact or law.—As
Remedial Law; Judgments; Enforcement of Foreign stated in Section 48, Rule 39, the actionable issues are generally
Judgments; Comity; There is an evident distinction between a restricted to a review of jurisdiction of the foreign court, the service
foreign judgment in an action in rem and one in personam; It is of personal notice, collusion, fraud, or mistake of fact or law. The
essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign limitations on review is in consonance with a strong and pervasive
judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly policy in all legal systems to limit repetitive litigation on claims and
determine its efficacy.— There is an evident distinction between a issues. Otherwise known as the policy of preclusion, it seeks to
foreign judgment in an action in rem and one in personam. For an protect party expectations resulting from previous litigation, to
action in rem, the foreign judgment is deemed conclusive upon the safeguard against the harassment of defendants, to insure that the
title to the thing, while in an action in personam, the foreign task of courts not be increased by never-ending litigation of the same
judgment is presumptive, and not conclusive, of a right as between disputes, and—in a larger sense—to promote what Lord Coke in
the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title. the Ferrer’s Case of 1599 stated to be the goal of all law: “rest and
However, in both cases, the foreign judgment is susceptible to quietness.” If every judgment of a foreign court were reviewable on
impeachment in our local courts on the grounds of want of the merits, the plaintiff would be forced back on his/her original
jurisdiction or notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake cause of action, rendering immaterial the previously concluded
of law or fact. Thus, the party aggrieved by the foreign judgment is litigation.
entitled to defend against the enforcement of such decision in the Same; Same; Same; Same; The viability of the public policy
local forum. It is essential that there should be an opportunity to defense against the enforcement of a foreign judgment has been
challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court in this recognized in this jurisdiction.—The viability of the public policy
jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy. defense against the enforcement of a foreign judgment has been
Same; Same; Same; Same; It is usually necessary for an action recognized in this jurisdiction. This defense allows for the
to be filed in order to enforce a foreign judgment; The party attacking application of local standards in reviewing the foreign judgment,
a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of especially when such judgment creates only a presumptive right, as
its validity.—It is clear then that it is usually necessary for an action 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 Ruben O. Fruto and Rodrigo C. Domingo for petitioners.
may result in a denial of recognition when the foreign court, in the Reynaldo P. Cruz for private respondent.
light of the choice-of-law rules of the recognizing court, applied the
wrong law to the case. The public policy defense can safeguard TINGA, J.:
against possible abuses to the easy resort to offshore litigation if it
can be demonstrated that the original claim is noxious to our Our martial law experience bore strange unwanted fruits, and
constitutional values. we have yet to finish weeding out its bitter crop. While the
399 restoration of freedom and the fundamental structures and
processes of democracy have been much lauded, according to a
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 399 significant number, the changes, however, have not
Mijares vs. Ranada sufficiently healed the colossal damage wrought under the
Same; Same; Same; Same; There is no obligatory rule derived oppressive conditions of the martial law period. The cries of
from treaties or conventions that requires the Philippines to recognize justice
foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement 400
thereof.— There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
conventions that requires the Philippines to recognize foreign
judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement thereof.
Mijares vs. Ranada
However, generally accepted principles of international law, by for the tortured, the murdered, and the desaparecidosarouse
virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of outrage and sympathy in the hearts of the fair-minded, yet the
the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty dispensation of the appropriate relief due them cannot be
obligations. The classical formulation in international law sees extended through the same caprice or whim that characterized
those customary rules accepted as binding result from the the ill-wind of martial rule. The damage done was not merely
combination two elements: the established, widespread, and personal but institutional, and the proper rebuke to the
consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological iniquitous past has to involve the award of reparations due
element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to within the confines of the restored rule of law.
law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the
The petitioners in this case are prominent victims of human
practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule
rights violations who, deprived of the opportunity to directly
1
of law requiring it.
confront the man who once held absolute rule over this
Same; Same; Same; Same; Court can assert with certainty that country, have chosen to do battle instead with the earthly
such an undertaking is among those generally accepted principles of representative, his estate. The clash has been for now
international law.—While the definite conceptual parameters of the interrupted by a trial court ruling, seemingly comported to
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments have not been legal logic, that required the petitioners to pay a whopping
authoritatively established, the Court can assert with certainty that
filing fee of over Four Hundred Seventy-Two Million Pesos
such an undertaking is among those generally accepted principles
of international law. (P472,000,000.00) in order that they be able to enforce a
judgment awarded them by a foreign court. There is an
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari. understandable temptation to cast the struggle within the
simplistic confines of a morality tale, and to employ short-cuts
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. to arrive at what might seem the desirable solution. But easy,
reflexive resort to the equity principle all too often leads to a approximately ten thousand (10,000) members; hence, joinder
result that may be morally correct, but legally wrong. of all these persons was impracticable.
Nonetheless, the application of the legal principles involved The institution of a class action suit was warranted under
in this case will comfort those who maintain that our Rule 23(a) and (b)(1)(B) of the US Federal Rules of Civil
substantive and procedural laws, for all their perceived Procedure, the provisions of which were invoked by the
ambiguity and susceptibility to myriad interpretations, are plaintiffs. Subsequently, the US District Court certified the
inherently fair and just. The relief sought by the petitioners is case as a class action and created three (3) sub-classes of
expressly mandated by our laws and conforms to established torture, summary execution and disappearance victims. Trial 5

legal principles. The granting of this petition for certiorari is ensued, and subsequently a jury rendered a verdict and an
warranted in order to correct the legally infirm and award of compensatory and exemplary damages in favor of the
unabashedly unjust ruling of the respondent judge. plaintiff
_______________ _______________

1 Priscilla Mijares is a judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay, Loretta 2 Namely Celsa Hilao, Josefina Hilao Forcadilla, Arturo P. Revilla, Jr.,

Ann P. Rosales an incumbent member of the House of Representatives, and Rodolfo G. Benosa, Danila M. Fuente, Renato Pineda, Domiciano Amparo,
Joel Lamangan a noted film director. Chistopher Sorio, Jose Duran, and Adora Faye De Vera. Rollo, pp. 42-47.
3 Except for Celsa Hilao, who instead alleged that her daughter, Liliosa

401 Hilao, had been tortured then executed by military personnel during martial
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 401 law. Id., at pp. 42-43.
4 Id., at p. 42.
Mijares vs. Ranada 5 Id., at p. 35.

The essential facts bear little elaboration. On 9 May 1991, a

complaint was filed with the United States District Court (US 402
District Court), District of Hawaii, against the Estate of 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
former Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos Mijares vs. Ranada
Estate). The action was brought forth by ten Filipino class. Then, on 3 February 1995, the US District Court,
citizens who each alleged having suffered human rights
2 presided by Judge Manuel L. Real, rendered a Final Judgment
abuses such as arbitrary detention, torture and rape in the (Final Judgment) awarding the plaintiff class a total of One
hands of police or military forces during the Marcos Billion Nine Hundred Sixty Four Million Five Thousand Eight
regime. The Alien Tort Act was invoked as basis for the US
3 Hundred Fifty Nine Dollars and Ninety Cents
District Court’s jurisdiction over the complaint, as it involved ($1,964,005,859.90). The Final Judgment was eventually
a suit by aliens for tortious violations of international affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in
law. These plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf
4 a decision rendered on 17 December 1996. 6

and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, On 20 May 1997, the present petitioners
particularly consisting of all current civilian citizens of the filed Complaintwith the Regional Trial Court, City of Makati
Philippines, their heirs and beneficiaries, who between 1972 (Makati RTC) for the enforcement of the Final Judgment.
and 1987 were tortured, summarily executed or had They alleged that they are members of the plaintiff class in
disappeared while in the custody of military or paramilitary whose favor the US District Court awarded damages. They 7

groups. Plaintiffs alleged that the class consisted of argued that since the Marcos Estate failed to file a petition for
certiorari with the US Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Respondent judge opined that contrary to the petitioners’
Court of Appeals had affirmed the Final Judgment, the submission, the subject matter of the complaint was indeed
decision of the US District Court had become final and capable of pecuniary estimation, as it involved a judgment
executory, and hence should be recognized and enforced in the rendered by a foreign court ordering the payment of definite
Philippines, pursuant to Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of sums of money, allowing for easy determination of the value of
Court then in force. 8 the foreign judgment. On that score, Section 7(a) of Rule 141
On 5 February 1998, the Marcos Estate filed a motion to of the Rules of Civil Procedure would find application, and the
dismiss, raising, among others, the non-payment of the correct RTC estimated the proper amount of filing fees was
filing fees. It alleged that petitioners had only paid Four approximately Four Hundred Seventy Two Million Pesos,
Hundred Ten Pesos (P410.00) as docket and filing fees, which obviously had not been paid.
notwithstanding the fact that they sought to enforce a Not surprisingly, petitioners filed a Motion for
monetary amount of damages in the amount of over Two and Reconsideration, which Judge Ranada denied in
a Quarter an Orderdated 28 July 1999. From this denial, petitioners
_______________ filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the twin
orders of respondent judge. They prayed for the annulment of
11
6 The Opinion was authored by Circuit Judge Betty B. Fletcher and
concurred in by Circuit Judge Harry Pragerson. Circuit Judge Pamela Ann the questioned orders, and an order directing the
Rymer filed an opinion concurring and dissenting in part, her dissent centering reinstatement of Civil Case No. 97-1052 and the conduct of
on the methodology used for computing compensatory damages. Rollo, pp. 84- appropriate proceedings thereon.
132. _______________
7 Under Section 58 of the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the judgment

for compensatory damages in a class suit is awarded to a randomly selected. . 9 Since increased to P600.00.
. . Petitioner Joel Lamangan was among the randomly selected claimants of 10 Now an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.
the Torture subclass awarded damages by the US District Court. See Rollo, p. 11 Petitioners correctly note that they are precluded from filing an appeal

71. on certiorari under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which
8 Now Section 48, Rule 39, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
bars an appeal taken from an order dismissing an action without prejudice and
403 dictates the aggrieved party to file an appropriate civil action under Rule 65
instead. See Rollo, p. 9.
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 403
Mijares vs. Ranada 404
Billion US Dollars (US$2.25 Billion). The Marcos Estate cited 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Supreme Court Circular No. 7, pertaining to the proper Mijares vs. Ranada
computation and payment of docket fees. In response, the Petitioners submit that their action is incapable of pecuniary
petitioners claimed that an action for the enforcement of a estimation as the subject matter of the suit is the enforcement
foreign judgment is not capable of pecuniary estimation; of a foreign judgment, and not an action for the collection of a
hence, a filing fee of only Four Hundred Ten Pesos (P410.00) sum of money or recovery of damages. They also point out that
was proper, pursuant to Section 7(c) of Rule 141. 9 to require the class plaintiffs to pay Four Hundred Seventy
On 9 September 1998, respondent Judge Santiago Javier Two Million Pesos (P472,000,000.00) in filing fees would
Ranada of 10 the Makati RTC issued the negate and render inutile the liberal construction ordained by
subject Orderdismissing the complaint without prejudice. the Rules of Court, as required by Section 6, Rule 1 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly the inexpensive An examination of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court readily
disposition of every action. evinces that the respondent judge ignored the clear letter of
Petitioners invoke Section 11, Article III of the Bill of the law when he concluded that the filing fee be computed
Rights of the Constitution, which provides that “Free access to based on the total sum claimed or the stated value of the
the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal property in litigation.
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of In dismissing the complaint, the respondent judge relied on
poverty,” a mandate which is essentially defeated by the Section 7(a), Rule 141 as basis for the computation of the filing
required exorbitant filing fee. The adjudicated amount of the fee of over P472 Million. The provision states:
filing fee, as arrived at by the RTC, was characterized as SEC. 7. Clerk of Regional Trial Court.—
indisputably unfair, inequitable, and unjust. (a) For filing an action or a permissive counterclaim or money
The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) was permitted to claim against an estate not based on judgment, or for filing
intervene in this case. It urged that the petition be granted
12
with leave of court a third-party, fourth-party, etc., complaint, or a
complaint in intervention, and for all clerical services in the same
and a judgment rendered, ordering the enforcement and
time, if the total sum claimed, exclusive of interest, or the started
execution of the District Court judgment in accordance with
value of the property in litigation, is:
Section 48, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. For
the CHR, the Makati RTC erred in interpreting the action for 1. Less than P 100,00.00 - P 500.00
the execution of a foreign judgment as a new case, in violation 2. P100,000.00 or more but less than - P 800.00
of the principle that once a case has been decided between the P150,000.00
same parties in one country on the same issue with finality, it 3. P150,000.00 or more but less than -
can no longer be relitigated again in another country. The 13
P200,000.00 P1,000.00
CHR likewise invokes the principle of comity, and of vested 4. P200,000.00 or more but less than -
rights. P250,000.00 P1,500.00
The Court’s disposition on the issue of filing fees will prove 5. P250,000.00 or more but less than P300,00.00 -
a useful jurisprudential guidepost for courts confronted with P1,750.00
actions enforcing foreign judgments, particularly those lodged 6. P300,000.00 or more but not more than -
_______________
P400,000.00 P2,000.00
12 In a Resolution dated 4 December 2000. Rollo, p. 282. 7. P350,000.00 or more but not more than -
13 Id., at p. 205. P400,000.00 P2,250.00
405 8. For each P 1,000.00 in excess of P400,000.00 - P 10.00
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 405 406

Mijares vs. Ranada 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

against an estate. There is no basis for the issuance a Mijares vs. Ranada
limited pro hac vice ruling based on the special circumstances ...
(Emphasis supplied)
of the petitioners as victims of martial law, or on the
emotionally-charged allegation of human rights abuses. Obviously, the above-quoted provision covers, on one hand,
ordinary actions, permissive counterclaims, third-party, etc.
complaints and complaints-in-interventions, and on the other, Mijares vs. Ranada
money claims against estates which are not based on 2. Special civil actions except judicial foreclosure
judgment. Thus, the relevant question for purposes of the which shall be governed by paragraph (a)
present petition is whether the action filed with the lower above.................................................................... P600.0
court is a “money claim against an estate not based on . 0
judgment.” 3. All other actions not involving property
Petitioners’ complaint may have been lodged against an .............................................................................. P600.0
estate, but it is clearly based on a judgment, the Final ............. 0
Judgment of the US District Court. The provision does not In a real action, the assessed value of the property, or if there is
make any distinction between a local judgment and a foreign none, the estimated value, thereof shall be alleged by the claimant
judgment, and where the law does not distinguish, we shall and shall be the basis in computing the fees.
not distinguish. It is worth noting that the provision also provides that in real
A reading of Section 7 in its entirety reveals several actions, the assessed value or estimated value of the property
instances wherein the filing fee is computed on the basis of the shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in
amount of the relief sought, or on the value of the property in computing the fees. Yet again, this provision does not apply in
litigation. The filing fee for requests for extrajudicial the case at bar. A real action is one where the plaintiff seeks
foreclosure of mortgage is based on the amount of the recovery of real property or an action affecting title to or
indebtedness or the mortgagee’s claim. In special proceedings 14
recovery of possession of real property. Neither the complaint 16

involving properties such as for the allowance of wills, the nor the award of damages adjudicated by the US District
filing fee is again based on the value of the property. The 15
Court involves any real property of the Marcos Estate.
aforecited rules evidently have no application to petitioners’ Thus, respondent judge was in clear and serious error when
complaint. he concluded that the filing fees should be computed on the
Petitioners rely on Section 7(b), particularly the proviso on basis of the schematic table of Section 7(a), as the action
actions where the value of the subject matter cannot be involved pertains to a claim against an estate based on
estimated. The provision reads in full: judgment. What provision, if any, then should apply in
SEC. 7. Clerk of Regional Trial Court.— determining the filing fees for an action to enforce a foreign
(b) For filing judgment?
1 Actions where the value of the subject matter cannot To resolve this question, a proper understanding is
. be estimated required on the nature and effects of a foreign judgment in this
.................................................................................... P600.0 jurisdiction.
..... 0 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
14 See Section 7(c), Rule 141. reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain
15 See Section 7(d), Id. _______________
407 16 Gochan v. Gochan, 423 Phil. 491, 502; 372 SCRA 256 (2001).
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 407
 408 409
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 409
Mijares vs. Ranada Mijares vs. Ranada
conditions that may vary in different countries. This principle
17 There is an evident distinction between a foreign judgment in
was prominently affirmed in the leading American case an action in rem and one in personam. For an action in rem,
of Hilton v. Guyot and expressly recognized in our
18 the foreign judgment is deemed conclusive upon the title to the
jurisprudence beginning with Ingenholl v. Walter E. Olsen & thing, while in an action in personam, the foreign judgment is
Co. The conditions required by the Philippines for recognition
19 presumptive, and not conclusive, of a right as between the
and enforcement of a foreign judgment were originally parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent
contained in Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which title. However, in both cases, the foreign judgment is
21

was taken from the California Code of Civil Procedure which, susceptible to impeachment in our local courts on the grounds
in turn, was derived from the California Act of March 11, of want of jurisdiction or notice to the party, collusion, 22

1872. Remarkably, the procedural rule now outlined in

20 fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Thus, the party
23 24

Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure has aggrieved by the foreign judgment is entitled to defend against
remained unchanged down to the last word in nearly a the enforcement of such decision in the local forum. It is
century. Section 48 states: essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge
SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments.—The effect of a judgment of a _______________
tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to pro
21 See also Borthwick v. Hon. Castro-Bartolome, G.R. No. L-57338, 23 July
nounce the judgment is as follows:
1987, 152 SCRA 129, 235; Philippine International Shipping Corp. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 77085, 26 April 1989, 172 SCRA 810, 819.
1. (a)In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is 22 “Ultimately, matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to

conclusive upon the title to the thing; the service of summons or court process upon the defendant, the authority of
2. (b)In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is counsel to appear and represent a defendant and the formal requirements in a
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their decision are governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum.” Asiavest
successors in interest by a subsequent title; Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad v. Court of Appeals, 414 Phil. 13, 29; 361 SCRA
489, 502 (1991).
23 “Fraud, to hinder the enforcement within this jurisdiction of a foreign
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by
judgment, must be extrinsic, i.e., fraud based on facts not controverted or
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
resolved in the case where judgment is rendered, or that which would go to the
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. 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. In fine, intrinsic fraud, that is, fraud which goes to the very existence
17 Philippine Aluminum Wheels v. Fasgi Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 137378,
of the cause of action—such as fraud in obtaining the consent to a contract—is
12 October 2000, 342 SCRA 722, 734; citing Jovito R Salonga, Private deemed already adjudged, and it, therefore, cannot militate against the
International Law, Rex Bookstore, Manila, Philippines, 1995 Edition, p. 543. recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment.” Philippine Aluminum
18 159 U.S. 113 (1895)
Wheels v. Fasgi Enterprises, Inc., supra note 17.
24 See, e.g., Nagarmull v. Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co., 144 Phil. 72,
19 47 Phil. 189 (1925). While the Philippine Supreme Court in this case

refused to enforce the judgment of the Hongkong Court on the ground of 77; 33 SCRA 46, 53 (1970); Ingenholl v. Walter E. Olsen and Company, Inc.,
mistake of law or fact, it was reversed on appeal to the US Supreme Court. supra note 20.
20 Id., JJ. Malcolm and Avanceña, dissenting.
410
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Mijares vs. Ranada
Mijares vs. Ranada tory grant of jurisdiction to a quasi-judicial body, the claim for
the foreign judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction enforcement of judgment must be brought before the regular
to properly determine its efficacy. 25 courts. 31

It is clear then that it is usually necessary for an action to There are distinctions, nuanced but discernible, between
be filed in order to enforce a foreign judgment , even if such26 the cause of action arising from the enforcement of a foreign
judgment has conclusive effect as in the case of in remactions, judgment, and that arising from the facts or allegations that
if only for the purpose of allowing the losing party an occasioned the foreign judgment. They may pertain to the
opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, and in order for same set of facts, but there is an essential difference in the
the court to properly determine its efficacy. Consequently, the
27 right-duty correlatives that are sought to be vindicated. For
party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of example, in a complaint for damages against a tortfeasor, the
overcoming the presumption of its validity. 28 cause of action emanates from the violation of the right of the
The rules are silent as to what initiatory procedure must be complainant through the act or omission of the respondent. On
undertaken in order to enforce a foreign judgment in the the other hand, in a complaint for the enforcement of a foreign
Philippines. But there is no question that the filing of a civil judgment awarding damages from the same tortfeasor, for the
complaint is an appropriate measure for such purpose. A civil violation of the same right through the same manner of action,
action is one by which a party sues another for the the cause of action derives not from the tortious act but from
enforcement or protection of a right, and clearly an action to
29 the foreign judgment itself.
enforce a foreign judgment is in essence a vindication of a right More importantly, the matters for proof are different. Using
pre-scinding either from a “conclusive judgment upon title” or the above example, the complainant will have to establish
the “presumptive evidence of a right.” Absent perhaps a statu-
30 before the court the tortious act or omission committed by the
_______________ tortfeasor, who in turn is allowed to rebut these factual
allegations or prove extenuating circumstances. Extensive
25 Roeher v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 142820, 20 June 2003, 404 SCRA 495, 503.
26 “An action must be brought in the second state upon the judgment
litigation is thus conducted on the facts, and from there the
recovered in the first.” J. Salonga, Private International Law (3rd ed., 1967), right to and amount of damages are assessed. On the other
at 500; citing Goodrich, 600, 601; Chesire, 628; II Beale, 1377. But see E. Scoles hand, in an action to enforce a foreign judgment, the matter
and P. Hay, Conflict of Laws (2nd ed., 1982), at 969, which recognizes that civil left for proof is the foreign judgment itself, and not the facts
law countries provide a procedure to give executory force to the foreign
judgment, as distinguished from the Anglo-American common law (but not from which it prescinds.
statutory) practice of requiring an action on the judgment. As stated in Section 48, Rule 39, the actionable issues are
27 See Philsec Investment Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103493, 19
generally restricted to a review of jurisdiction of the foreign
June 1997, 274 SCRA 102, 110. court, the service of personal notice, collusion, fraud, or mis-
28 Northwest Orient Airlines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112573, 9
_______________
February 1995, 241 SCRA 192, 199.
29 See Section 3(a), Rule 1, Rules of Civil Procedure.

30 Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. Section 1,

the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. Section 2,
Rule 2, Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 2, Rules of Civil Procedure. A cause of action is 31 See Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corp. v. National Labor Relations

411 Commission, G.R. No. 76595. 6 May 1988, 161 SCRA 122, 133.
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 411 412
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 32 Soles & Hay, supra note 27, at p. 916.
33 Ibid.
Mijares vs. Ranada 34 Salonga, supra note 27, at p. 514; citing Cheshire, 803.

take of fact or law. The limitations on review is in consonance

413
with a strong and pervasive policy in all legal systems to limit
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 413
repetitive litigation on claims and issues. Otherwise known as
32

Mijares vs. Ranada

the policy of preclusion, it seeks to protect party expectations
not the P1 million, but the enforcement of the promissory note, and
resulting from previous litigation, to safeguard against the
that the value of such “enforcement” cannot be estimated. 35

harassment of defendants, to insure that the task of courts not

be increased by never-ending litigation of the same disputes, The jurisprudential standard in gauging whether the subject
and—in a larger sense—to promote what Lord Coke in matter of an action is capable of pecuniary estimation is well-
the Ferrer’s Case of 1599 stated to be the goal of all law: “rest entrenched. The Marcos Estate cites Singsong v. Isabela
and quietness.” If every judgment of a foreign court were
33 Sawmill and Raymundo v. Court of Appeals, which ruled:
reviewable on the merits, the plaintiff would be forced back on [I]n determining whether an action is one the subject matter of
his/her original cause of action, rendering immaterial the which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted
previously concluded litigation. 34 the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action
Petitioners appreciate this distinction, and rely upon it to or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of
money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and
support the proposition that the subject matter of the
whether jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of
complaint—the enforcement of a foreign judgment—is
first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However,
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Admittedly the proposition, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a
as it applies in this case, is counter-intuitive, and thus sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
deserves strict scrutiny. For in all practical intents and consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has
purposes, the matter at hand is capable of pecuniary considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation
estimation, down to the last cent. In the assailed Order, the may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable
respondent judge pounced upon this point without exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).
equivocation:
On the other hand, petitioners cite the ponencia of Justice JBL
The Rules use the term “where the value of the subject matter
cannot be estimated.” The subject matter of the present case is the Reyes in Lapitan v. Scandia, from which the rule
36

judgment rendered by the foreign court ordering defendant to pay in Singsong and Raymundo actually derives, but which
plaintiffs definite sums of money, as and for compensatory damages. incorporates this additional nuance omitted in the latter
The Court finds that the value of the foreign judgment can be cases:
estimated; indeed, it can even be easily determined. The Court is x x x However, where the basic issue is something other than the
not minded to distinguish between the enforcement of a judgment right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely
and the amount of said judgment, and separate the two, for purposes incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, like
of determining the correct filing fees. Similarly, a plaintiff suing on in suits to have the defendant perform his part of the
promissory note for P1 million cannot be allowed to pay only P400 contract (specific performance) and in actions for support,
filing fees (sic), on the reasoning that the subject matter of his suit or for annulment of judgment or to foreclose a mortgage, this
is Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the
_______________
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are _______________
cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance.
37

38 Rollo, at p. 326, citing Arroz v. Alojado, 19 SCRA 711 (1967).

_______________ 39 Ibid., citing Bunayog v. Tunas, 106 Phil. 715 (1959).
40 Id., citing Baito v. Sarmiento, 109 Phil. 148 (1960).

35 Rollo, p. 30. Emphasis omitted. 41 Id., citing De Rivera v. Halili, 9 SCRA 59 (1963).

36 133 Phil. 526; 24 SCRA 479 (1968). 42 Id., citing Bautista v. Lim, 88 SCRA 479 (1979) and De Leon v. Court of

37 Id., at p. 528. Appeals, 287 SCRA 94 (1998).

43 Id., citing Amorganda v. Court of Appeals, 166 SCRA 203 (1988); Ortigas

414 & Company v. Herrera, 120 SCRA 89 (1983).

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 44 Id., citing Mercado v. Ubay, 187 SCRA 719 (1990) and Filipino Pipe
Mijares vs. Ranada Workers Union v. Batario, Jr., 163 SCRA 789 (1988).

Petitioners go on to add that among the actions the Court has 415
recognized as being incapable of pecuniary estimation include VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 415
legality of conveyances and money deposits, validity of a38
Mijares vs. Ranada
mortgage, the
39 right to support, validity
40 of Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
documents, rescission
41 of contracts, specific
42 Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases.—
performance, and validity or annulment of judgments. It is
43 44 Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
urged that an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
belongs to the same class. (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate
This is an intriguing argument, but ultimately it is self- proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional
remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property,
evident that while the subject matter of the action is
estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed One hundred
undoubtedly the enforcement of a foreign judgment, the effect
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such
of a providential award would be the adjudication of a sum of personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
money. Perhaps in theory, such an action is primarily for “the Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) exclusive of interest
enforcement of the foreign judgment,” but there is a certain damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
obtuseness to that sort of argument since there is no denying costs, the amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided,
that the enforcement of the foreign judgment will necessarily That where there are several claims or causes of action between the
result in the award of a definite sum of money. same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
But before we insist upon this conclusion past beyond the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the
point of reckoning, we must examine its possible causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose
ramifications. Petitioners raise the point that a declaration out of the same or different transactions;
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and
that an action for enforcement of foreign judgment may be
unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the
capable of pecuniary estimation might lead to an instance
defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the
wherein a first level court such as the Municipal Trial Court question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue
would have jurisdiction to enforce a foreign judgment. But of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to
under the statute defining the jurisdiction of first level courts, determine the issue of possession.
B.P. 129, such courts are not vested with jurisdiction over (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which
actions for the enforcement of foreign judgments. involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein capable of pecuniary estimation. But at the same time, it is
does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil also an action based on judgment against an estate, thus
actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed placing it beyond the ambit of Section 7(a) of Rule 141. What
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of provision then governs the proper computation of the filing
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and
fees over the instant complaint? For this case and other
costs: Provided, That value of such property shall be determined by
similarly situated instances, we find that it is covered by
the assessed value of the adjacent lots. 45

Section 7(b)(3), involving as it does, “other actions not

Section 33 of B.P. 129 refers to instances wherein the cause of involving property.”
action or subject matter pertains to an assertion of rights and Notably, the amount paid as docket fees by the petitioners
interests over property or a sum of money. But as earlier on the premise that it was an action incapable of pecuniary
_______________ estimation corresponds to the same amount required for
“other actions not involving property.” The petitioners thus
45 As amended by Rep. Act No. 7691.
paid the correct amount of filing fees, and it was a grave
416 417
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 417
Mijares vs. Ranada Mijares vs. Ranada
pointed out, the subject matter of an action to enforce a foreign abuse of discretion for respondent judge to have applied
judgment is the foreign judgment itself, and the cause of action instead a clearly inapplicable rule and dismissed the
arising from the adjudication of such judgment. complaint.
An examination of Section 19(6), B.P. 129 reveals that the There is another consideration of supreme relevance in this
instant complaint for enforcement of a foreign judgment, even case, one which should disabuse the notion that the doctrine
if capable of pecuniary estimation, would fall under the affirmed in this decision is grounded solely on the letter of the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, thus negating the procedural rule. We earlier adverted to the internationally
fears of the petitioners. Indeed, an examination of the recognized policy of preclusion, as well as the principles of
46

provision indicates that it can be relied upon as jurisdictional comity, utility and convenience of nations as the basis for the
47

basis with respect to actions for enforcement of foreign evolution of the rule calling for the recognition and
judgments, provided that no other court or office is vested enforcement of foreign judgments. The US Supreme Court
jurisdiction over such complaint: in Hilton v. Guyot relied heavily on the concept of comity, as
48

Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.—Regional Trial Courts shall especially derived from the landmark treatise of Justice Story
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: in his Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws of 1834. Yet the
49

xxx notion of “comity” has since been criticized as one “of dim
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, contours” or suffering from a number of fallacies. Other
50 51

tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court,

conceptual bases for the recognition of foreign judgments have
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions. evolved such as the vested rights theory or the modern
doctrine of obligation. 52

Thus, we are comfortable in asserting the obvious, that the There have been attempts to codify through treaties or
complaint to enforce the US District Court judgment is one multilateral agreements the standards for the recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgments, but these have not borne rules on these matters in national legal systems. And such generic
fruition. The members of the European Common Market principles as reciprocity play an important role in both fields. 57

accede to the Judgments Convention, signed in 1978, which Salonga, whose treatise on private international law is of
eliminates as to participating countries all of such obstacles to worldwide renown, points out:
recognition such as reciprocity and révision au fond. The 53
_______________
most ambitious of these attempts is the Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil 54 Steiner & Vagts, supra note 51, at p. 808. “A decision rendered in one of

_______________ the Contracting States shall be entitled to recognition and enforcement in

another Contracting State under the terms of this Convention—(1) if the
46 Supra note 32. decision was given by a court considered to have jurisdiction within the
47 Supra note 17. meaning of this Convention, and (2) if it is no longer subject to ordinary forms
48 Supra note 18. of review in the State of origin.” Convention on the Recognition and
49 H. Steiner & D. Vagts, Transnational Legal Problems: Materials and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Chapter
Text (2nd ed., 1976), at p. 775. II, Article 4.
55 To date, only Cyprus, the Netherlands, Portugal and Kuwait have either
50 Ibid.

51 See Salonga, supra note 27, at p. 66. ratified or acceded to the Convention.
56 Steiner & Vagts, supra note 51.
52 Id., at pp. 502-503.
57 Steiner & Vagts, supra note 51, at p. 776.
53 Scoles & Hays, supra note 27, at p. 970.

418 419
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 419
Mijares vs. Ranada Mijares vs. Ranada
and Commercial Matters, prepared in 1966 by the Hague Whatever be the theory as to the basis for recognizing foreign
Conference of International Law. While it has not received
54
judgments, there can be little dispute that the end is to protect the
reasonable expectations and demands of the parties. Where the
the ratifications needed to have it take effect, it is recognized
55

parties have submitted a matter for adjudication in the court of one

as representing current scholarly thought on the state, and proceedings there are not tainted with irregularity, they
topic. Neither the Philippines nor the United States are
56
may fairly be expected to submit, within the state or elsewhere, to
signatories to the Convention. the enforcement of the judgment issued by the court. 58

Yet even if there is no unanimity as to the applicable theory

behind the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments There is also consensus as to the requisites for recognition of
or a universal treaty rendering it obligatory force, there is a foreign judgment and the defenses against the enforcement
consensus that the viability of such recognition and thereof. As earlier discussed, the exceptions enumerated in
enforcement is essential. Steiner and Vagts note: Section 48, Rule 39 have remain unchanged since the time
. . . The notion of unconnected bodies of national law on private they were adapted in this jurisdiction from long standing
international law, each following a quite separate path, is not one American rules. The requisites and exceptions as delineated
conducive to the growth of a transnational community encouraging under Section 48 are but a restatement of generally accepted
travel and commerce among its members. There is a contemporary principles of international law. Section 98 of The Restatement,
resurgence of writing stressing the identity or similarity of the Second, Conflict of Laws, states that “a valid judgment
values that systems of public and private international law seek to rendered in a foreign nation after a fair trial in a contested
further—a community interest in common, or at least reasonable, proceeding will be recognized in the United States,” and on its
face, the term “valid” brings into play requirements such _______________
notions as valid jurisdiction over the subject matter and 61 Ibid.; citing Henderson v. Henderson, 6 Q.B. (1844) 288; Vanquelin v.
parties. Similarly, the notion that fraud or collusion may
59
Bouard, 15 C.B. (N.S. 1863) 341; Godard v. Gray, L.R. 6 Q.B. 139
preclude the enforcement of a foreign judgment finds (1870); Vadala v. Lawes 25 Q.B.D. (1890) 319, 316; cf. Chandler v. Peketz, 297
affirmation with foreign jurisprudence and commentators, as 60 U.S. 609, 56 S. Ct., 80 L. Ed. 881 (1936); Cheshire, 661-664; Wolff, 268;
Goodrich, 603.
well as the 62 Soles & Hay, supra note 27, at p. 978.
_______________ 63 “Thus, when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound

and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or
58 Salonga, supra note 51, at p. 502.
order shall not be applied.” Bank of America v. American Realty Corp., 378
59 Steiner & Vagts, supra note 27, at p. 779. “A policy common to all legal
Phil. 1279, 1296; 321 SCRA 659, 674 (1999); citing Philippine Conflict of Laws,
systems is to provide for the final resolution of disputes. The policy is furthered
Eight Edition, 1996, Paras, page 46. “Las sentencias de tribunals extranjeros
by each nation’s adoption of a view of ‘jurisdiction in the international sense’
no pueden ponerse en vigor en Filipinas si son contrarias a las leyes, costumbres
which recognizes the foreign court’s assertion of jurisdiction as satisfying its
y orden público. Si dichas decisiones, por la simple teoría de reciprocidad,
own notions of due process in circumstances in which it itself would have
cortesía judicial y urbanidad internacional son base suficiente para que
asserted jurisdiction.” Soles & Hay, supranote 27, at p. 976; citing
nuestros tribunales decidan a tenor de las mismas, entonces nuestros juzgados
Hay, International versus Interstate Conflicts Law in the United States, 35
estarían en la pobre tessitura de tener que dictar sentencias contrarias a
Rabels Zeitschrift 429, 450 n. 101 (1971) and Cherun v. Frishman, 236 F. Supp.
nuestras leyes, costumbres y orden público. Esto es absurdo.” Querubin v.
292 (D.D.C. 1964). Salonga, in affirming the rule of want of jurisdiction, cites
Querubin, 87 Phil. 124, 133. (1950).
the commentaries of Cheshire, Wolff, Goodrich and Nussbaum. 64 See Section 48, Rule 39, Rules of Civil Procedure.
60 See, e.g., Salonga, supra note 27 at p. 513.

421
420
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 421
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mijares vs. Ranada
Mijares vs. Ranada
court, applied the wrong law to the case. The public policy
65

doctrine that the foreign judgment must not constitute “a clear

defense can safeguard against possible abuses to the easy
mistake of law or fact.” And finally, it has been recognized
61

resort to offshore litigation if it can be demonstrated that the

that “public policy” as a defense to the recognition of
original claim is noxious to our constitutional values.
judgments serves as an umbrella for a variety of concerns in
There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or
international practice which may lead to a denial of
conventions that requires the Philippines to recognize foreign
recognition. 62

judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement thereof.

The viability of the public policy defense against the
However, generally accepted principles of international law,
enforcement of a foreign judgment has been recognized in this
by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form
jurisdiction. This defense allows for the application of local
63

part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from
standards in reviewing the foreign judgment, especially when
treaty obligations. The classical formulation in international
66

such judgment creates only a presumptive right, as it does in

law sees those customary rules accepted as binding result from
cases wherein the judgment is against a person. The defense 64

the combination two elements: the established, widespread,

is also recognized within the international sphere, as many
and consistent practice on the part of States; and a
civil law nations adhere to a broad public policy exception
psychological element known as the opinion juris sive
which may result in a denial of recognition when the foreign
necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the
court, in the light of the choice-of-law rules of the recognizing
latter element is a belief that the practice in question is
rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring 1900s. Certainly, the Philippine legal system has long ago
it.
67 accepted into its jurisprudence and procedural rules the
While the definite conceptual parameters of the recognition viability of an action for enforcement of foreign judgment, as
and enforcement of foreign judgments have not been well as the requisites for such valid enforcement, as derived
authoritatively established, the Court can assert with from internationally accepted doctrines. Again, there may be
certainty that such an undertaking is among those generally distinctions as to the rules adopted by each particular state, 69

accepted prin- _______________

_______________
68 “The problems that arise in the enforcement of foreign judgments are

65 Soles & Hays, supra note 27, at p. 979. generally to be solved by the principles of international law. The Philippines
66 “[It] is generally recognized that, subject to [exceptions], a rule of general by its Constitution, adopts the generally accepted principles of international
customary international law is binding on all States, whether or not they have law. F. Gupit, “Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards”, XXIII
participated in the practice from which it sprang.” H. Thirlway, “The Sources J. Integ. Bar. Phil. 3, at p. 69.
69 Divergent practices do not necessarily preclude recognition of a
of International Law,” International Law (ed. by M. Evans, 1st ed., 2003), at p.
124. customary norm. In reviewing the question of the existence of customary rules
67 “Not only must the acts concerned amount to a settled practice, but they forbidding the use of force or intervention, the International Court of Justice
must also be such, or be carried out in such a way, as to be evidence of a belief pertinently held: “It is not to be expected that in the practice of States the
that this practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law application of the rules in question should have been perfect, in the sense that
requiring it. The need for such a belief, i.e., the existence of a subjective States should have refrained, with complete consistency, from the use of force
element, is implicit in the very notion of the opinion juris sive necessitatis. or from intervention in each other’s internal affairs. The Court does not
North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3, para. 77; cited consider that, for a rule to be established as customary, the
in H. Thirl-way, Ibid. corresponding practice must be in absolutely rigorous conformity
with the rule. In order to deduce the existence of custom-
422
423
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 423
Mijares vs. Ranada
Mijares vs. Ranada
ciples of international law. As earlier demonstrated, there is
68

but they all prescind from the premise that there is a rule of
a widespread practice among states accepting in principle the
law obliging states to allow for, however generally, the
need for such recognition and enforcement, albeit subject to
recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. The bare
limitations of varying degrees. The fact that there is no
principle, to our mind, has attained the status of opinio
binding universal treaty governing the practice is not
juris in international practice.
indicative of a widespread rejection of the principle, but only a
This is a significant proposition, as it acknowledges that the
disagreement as to the imposable specific rules governing the
procedure and requisites outlined in Section 48, Rule 39 derive
procedure for recognition and enforcement.
their efficacy not merely from the procedural rule, but by
Aside from the widespread practice, it is indubitable that
virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution. Rules of
the procedure for recognition and enforcement is embodied in
the rules of law, whether statutory or jurisprudential, adopted procedure are promulgated by the Supreme Court, and could 70

very well be abrogated or revised by the high court itself. Yet

in various foreign jurisdictions. In the Philippines, this is
the Supreme Court is obliged, as are all State components, to
evidenced primarily by Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of
obey the laws of the land, including generally accepted
Court which has existed in its current form since the early
principles of international law which form part thereof, such
as those ensuring the qualified recognition and enforcement of validity, if the docket fees for the enforcement thereof were
foreign judgments. 71 predicated on the amount of the award sought to be enforced.
Thus, relative to the enforcement of foreign judgments in The theory adopted by respondent judge and the Marcos
the Philippines, it emerges that there is a general right Estate may even lead to absurdities, such as if applied to an
recognized within our body of laws, and affirmed by the award involving real property situated in places such as the
Constitution, to seek recognition and enforcement of foreign United States or Scandinavia where real property values are
judgments, as well as a right to defend against such inexorably high. We cannot very well require that the filing
enforcement fee be computed based on the value of the foreign property as
_______________ determined by the standards of the country where it is located.
As crafted, Rule 141 of the Rules of Civil Procedure avoids
ary rules, the Court deems it sufficient that the conduct of States, should,
in general, be consistent with such rules, and that instances of State conduct unreasonableness, as it recognizes that the subject matter of
inconsistent with a given rule should generally have been treated as breaches an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment is the foreign
of that rule, not as indications of recognition of a new rule.” (emphasis _______________
supplied) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, 72 Indeed, the valuation of foreign money judgments remains a matter of

p. 14, para. 186; citing in H. Thirlway, supranote 66. debate in international law. In the United States, Section 144 of the
70 And other inferior courts, relative to their jurisdictions.
Restatement, Second, Conflicts of Laws (1971) adopts the rule that the forum
71 Sec. 2, Art. II, 1987 Const., which states “The Philippines renounces war
would convert the currency into local currency as of the date of the award.
as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of However, this rule has been criticized. In England, the judgment debtor may
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of now effect payment either in the foreign currency in the amount due or in local
peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.” currency equivalent to the foreign currency on the date of payment. French
and German law similarly permit the expression of a judgment in foreign
424 currency. Soles & Hays, supra note 27, at p. 973.
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
425
Mijares vs. Ranada
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 425
on the grounds of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
Mijares vs. Ranada
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
The preclusion of an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment itself, and not the right-duty correlatives that
judgment in this country merely due to an exorbitant resulted in the foreign judgment. In this particular
assessment of docket fees is alien to generally accepted circumstance, given that the complaint is lodged against an
practices and principles in international law. Indeed, there are estate and is based on the US District Court’s Final
grave concerns in conditioning the amount of the filing fee on Judgment, this foreign judgment may, for purposes of
the pecuniary award or the value of the property subject of the classification under the governing procedural rule, be deemed
foreign decision. Such pecuniary award will almost certainly as subsumed under Section 7(b)(3) of Rule 141, i.e., within the
be in foreign denomination, computed in accordance with the class of “all other actions not involving property.” Thus, only
applicable laws and standards of the forum. The vagaries of
72
the blanket filing fee of minimal amount is required.
inflation, as well as the relative low-income capacity of the Finally, petitioners also invoke Section 11, Article III of the
Filipino, to date may very well translate into an award Constitution, which states that “[F]ree access to the courts and
virtually unenforceable in this country, despite its integral quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not
be denied to any person by reason of poverty.” Since the
provision is among the guarantees ensured by the Bill of REINSTATING Civil Case No. 97-1052 is hereby issued. No
Rights, it certainly gives rise to a demandable right. However, costs.
now is not the occasion to elaborate on the parameters of this SO ORDERED.
constitutional right. Given our preceding discussion, it is not Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo,
necessary to utilize this provision in order to grant the relief Sr.and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
sought by the petitioners. It is axiomatic that the
Petition granted, assailed orders nullified and set aside.
constitutionality of an act will not be resolved by the courts if
Civil Case No. 97-1052 reinstated.
the controversy can be settled on other grounds or unless the
73

Note.—The rules of comity, utility and convenience of

resolution thereof is indispensable for the determination of the
nations have established a usage among civilized states by
case. 74

which final judgments of foreign courts of competent

One more word. It bears noting that Section 48, Rule 39
jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered
acknowledges that the Final Judgment is not conclusive yet,
efficacious. (Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. vs. FASGI
but presumptive evidence of a right of the petitioners against
Enterprises, Inc., 342 SCRA 722 [2000])
the Marcos Estate. Moreover, the Marcos Estate is not
precluded to present evidence, if any, of want of jurisdiction,
want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake
of law or fact. This ruling, decisive as it is on the question of
filing fees and no other, does not render verdict on the
enforceability of the Final Judgment before the courts under
the
_______________

73 Ty v. Trampe, 321 Phil. 81; 250 SCRA 500 (1995).

74 Tarrosa v. Singson, G.R. No. 111243, 25 May 1994, 232 SCRA 553, 557.

426
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mijares vs. Ranada
jurisdiction of the Philippines, or for that matter any other
issue which may legitimately be presented before the trial
court. Such issues are to be litigated before the trial court, but
within the confines of the matters for proof as laid down in
Section 48, Rule 39. On the other hand, the speedy resolution
of this claim by the trial court is encouraged, and
contumacious delay of the decision on the merits will not be
brooked by this Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
orders are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE, and a new order