Amounts to the extension of application and

extraterritorial effect of foreign law upon which

the judgment is founded.
Presence of consent (express or implied)
There needs to be a compact, treaty or
convention before a country recognizes or
enforces a foreign judgment.
Philippines have not entered into, relative to
recognition and enforcement of foreign
judgement
BASIS OF GIVING EFFECT TO FOREIGN JUDGMENT
(a) RULE 39, SECTION 48
(b) COMITY
(c)

COMITY
RECIPROCITY
FOREIGN JUDGMENT CREATES AN
OBLIGATION TO PAY A DEBT AND ENTITLES
THE PREVAILING PARTY TO A VESTED RIGHT
TO ENFORCE IT IN ANY COUNTRY WHERE THE
DEFENDANT IS FOUND OR HAS PROPERTY
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT MAY BE EXECUTED.
RES JUDICATA
Matter of respect
In case of conflict with laws, public policy,
morals, rights of its citizens and other
persons, COMITY must yield/Philippine courts
will refuse recognition or enforcement of
foreign judgment.
MUTUALITY
IF THE COURT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY ACCORDS
RECOGNITION OR GIVES EFFECT TO PHILIPPINE
JUDGMENT, OUR COURT WILL SIMILARLY EXTEND
RECOGNITION OR GRANT EFFECT TO THE
FOREIGN JUDGMENT
PHIL. HAS NO LAW ON RECIPROCITY ON THE
RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
JUDGMENTS
HENCE, IF JUDGMENTS ARE RECIPROCALLY
RECOGNIZED/GIVEN EFFECT, IT MAY ONLY BA AS
A CONSEQUENCE OF COMITY AS A BASIS

REQUIREMENTS:
JUDGMENT MUST BE FINAL
FOREIGN COURT MUST HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
AND THE PARTIES
JUDGMENT MUST BE ON THE MERITS
THERE WAS IDENTITY OF PARTIES, SUBJECT ,ATTER, AND CAUSE OF
ACTION
Issues raised in the foreign judgment should not be re-litigated
anew in another country
The enforcement of the foreign judgment necessarily includes its
recognition, for the court cannot enforce the judgment by
granting affirmative reliefs without recognizing it as valid.
Recognition does not necessarily imply enforcement, as theres
no affirmative relief is prayed for, when it is presented as a
defense to defeat the plaintiffs claim
EX. SUM OF MONEY filed in another country if dismissed which
becomes final, defendant cannot be sued again by the plaintiff
for the same cause of action in the Phil.


Case filed before the CFI on the issue of Property rights between
husband and wife, including shares of stock in Phil. Corp.
Husband obtained judgment declaring him entitled to the stock
& accrued dividends as administrator of conjugal partnership
Instead of seeking for the execution on such judgment, Husband
filed another action in New York, litigating the right to same
stock against his wife
Wife appealed and won, which decision was regarded as res
judicata in still further litigation
Filed the same action in California, the New York Judgment
constituted res judicata
SC ruled that he should not be permitted to repudiate the foreign
judgment and to ask for the enforcement of the Phil/ judgment
which he previously abandoned because it is contrary to the
policy and interest of the Phil. to disturb the orderly
administration of justice.

Where there are 2 cases filed, one in a foreign
country and in the Phil., involving the same facts,
parties, the judgment in the foreign court rendered
while the case in the country is pending does not
constitute res judicata as basis for its enforcement
without giving the losing party the opportunity to
show that the foreign judgment is vitiated by
Want of jurisdiction
Want of notice to the party
Collusion
Fraud
Or clear mistake of law or fact
And only when the court shall have ruled that the foreign
judgment is free from any of such defects.
CASE: PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORP. vs. CA, 274 SCRA 102
While the action was pending before the CA, the
US Court for the Southern District of Texas
rendered judgment in the case before it, in favor
of private respondent VENTURA DUCAT.
Principal issue to be resolved is whether civil case
filed before the RTC Makati is barred by the
judgment in the US Court.
The Court held that the US judgment could not
be fiven effect of res judicata, without giving the
losing party the opportunity to impeach the
foregoing judgment on grounds stated in Section
48 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
Provides for the effect of foreign judgment in
our jurisdiction
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;
In case of a judgment or final order is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be
repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want
of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact
1.Court which rendered it has jurisdiction
over the thing and the persons of the parties
2.Procedural due process has been observed
by the foreign court
3.No collusion or fraud attended the
proceedings
Action filed is a real action and judgment therein is a judgment in rem
Judgment in rem is judgment against a thing
The court is authorized to decide upon it without notice to persons, all
the world being parties
Publication of notice being sufficient
Since foreign judgment is conclusive upon the thing (personal/real
situated in the foreign country), its effects may be invoked in our
country
Subject to the right of the defendant to repel it on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, lack of notice to the party, fraud, collusion and clear
mistake of law or fact
NO FOREIGN COURT CAN, BY ITS JUDGMENT, BIND OR AFFECT REAL
PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE PHILIPPINES, EXCEPT IN A MANNER
CONSISTENT WITH THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION AND ITS LAWS, WITH
RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY OF TRANSFER AND THE LEGAL CAPACITY OF
THE PERSON TO TAKE THE REAL PROPERTY
Personal action, in which the plaintiff seeks the
recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a
contract, or the recovery of damages
Judgment refers to a judgment in personam based on
personal liability
Unlike a foreign judgment in rem, which is conclusive
upon the thing, a foreign judgment in personam is a
presumptive evidence of a right as between the
parties and their successors-in-interest
The party who has been liable and against whom the
foreign judgment is sought to be enforced in the
country may overcome the presumption of liability by
presenting evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud.
REQUISITE PROOF OF THE FOREIGN
JUDGMENT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED
FOREIGN JUDGMENT MAY CONTRAVENE A
RECOGNIZED AND ESTABLISHED POLICY IN
OUR COUNTRY
EX. Foreign decree of divorce between Filipinos
abroad
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE
COUNTRY WHERE THE FOREIGN JUDGMENT
CAME FROM MAY BE SHOCKINGLY CORRUPT
OR NOT BEYOND REPROACH.
There must be adequate proof of the foreign
judgment
Judgement must be on a civil or commercial
matter, not on a criminal, revenue, or
administrative matter
There must be no lack of jurisdiction, no want of
notice, no collusion, no clear mistake of law or
fact (Rule 39, Sec. 48)
Foreign judgment must not contravene a sound
and established public policy of the forum
Judgment must be res judicata