100. MIJARES V.

RANADA
(Recognition of Foreign Judgments)
Facts:
Invoking the Alien Tort Act, petitioners Mijares, et al.*, all of whom suffered human rights
violations during the Marcos era, obtained a Final Judgment in their favor against the Estate of
the late Ferdinand Marcos amounting to roughly $1.9B in compensatory and exemplary
damages for tortuous violations of international law in the US District Court of Hawaii. This Final
Judgment was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals.
On 20 May 1997, the present petitioners filed Complaint with the Regional Trial Court, City of
Makati (Makati RTC) for the enforcement of the Final Judgment.
They argued that since the Marcos Estate failed to file a petition for certiorari with the US
Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had affirmed the Final Judgment, the
decision of the US District Court had become final and executory, and hence should be
recognized and enforced in the Philippines, pursuant to Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court then in force.
The Estate of Marcos however, filed a MTD alleging the non-payment of the correct filing fees.
To resolve the question of correct filing fee, the Court found it proper to understand the nature
and effects of a foreign judgment in this jurisdiction.
Issue: WON the preclusion (avoidance) of an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment in
this country merely due to an exorbitant (excessive) assessment of docket fees is generally
accepted in international law.
Held:
No. As a general rule, there is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions that
requires the Philippines to recognize foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for the
enforcement thereof. However, generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the
incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not
derive from treaty obligations.
While the definite conceptual parameters of the recognition and enforcement of foreign
judgments have not been authoritatively established, the Court can assert with certainty that
such an undertaking is among those generally accepted principles of international law. As earlier
demonstrated, there is a widespread practice among states accepting in principle the need for
such recognition and enforcement, albeit subject to limitations of varying degrees. The fact that
there is no binding universal treaty governing the practice is not indicative of a widespread
rejection of the principle, but only a disagreement as to the imposable specific rules governing
the procedure for recognition and enforcement.

The preclusion of an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment in this country merely due to
an exorbitant assessment of docket fees is alien to generally accepted practices and principles
in international law. Thus, only the blanket filing fee of minimal amount is required.