LINGNER and FISHER v.

IAC FACTS: Agreement between DMW and PHILCHEM for the latter to import DMWs products into the Philippines. It provided for a ROYALTY CLAUSE (10% on sales after termination of AGREEMENT); and a clause that ALL LEGAL SETTLEMENTS FALLS UNDER PHILIPPINE JURISDICTION DMW acquired by LINGNER and agreement was terminated PHILCHEM claimed 1M against LINGNER under the royalty clause, and served summons against the Law Firm as agents of the defendants (BEECHAM and LINGNER) ISSUE: 1. WON LINGNER was doing business in the Philippines 2. WON summons to the firm was valid. HELD: 1. NOT RELEVANT. Since they were parties in the AGREEMENT, and claim was arising from the contract. Furthermore, it was expressly stipulated that all settlements has Philippine jurisdiction. It had an effect that LINGNER can be sued in the Philippines in relation to the agreement. 2. YES. Applicable rule is rule 14 or ROC sec.14 summons on foreign corp., and rule 4 in relation to rule 14 which provides for summons by publication as alias summons. EUGENE PERKINS v. BCMC FACTS: Perkins filed an action for recovery of dividends due her as a stockholder of Benguet Consolidated Mining (BCM). BCM has been carrying on in Ohio a continuous and systematic but limited part of its general business. Its president, while engaged in doing such business in Ohio, has been served with summons in this proceeding. The cause of action did not arise in Ohio and does not relate to the corporations activities there. Thus, the trial court sustained a motion to quash service of summons on BCM. HELD: Ohio court has jurisdiction. The service of summons is valid. If an authorized representative of a foreign corporation is physically present in the state of forum and be there engaged in activities appropriate to accepting service or receiving notice on its behalf, there is no unfairness in subjecting the corporation to the jurisdiction of courts of that state through such service of process upon the representative. This has been squarely held to be so in a proceeding in personam against such a corporation, at least in relation to a cause of action arising out of the corporations activities within the state of the forum. The amount and kind of activities, however, which must be carried on by the foreign corporation in the state of the forum so as to make it reasonable and just to subject the corporation to the jurisdiction of that state are to be determined in each case. PHILSEC v. IAC FACTS: Ducat obtained loans from Ayala International Finance and Philsec secured by shares of stock. 1488

Inc. assumed Ducats obligation. 1488 sold to Athona Holdings a parcel of land in Harris County, Texas while Philsec and Ayala extended a loan to Athona to finance payment of the purchase price. Thus, Ducat was released from the obligation. As Athona failed to pay the balance of the purchase price, the entire debt became due and demandable. 1488 sued Philsec, Ayala and Athona in the US for payment of the balance plus damages. While the case was pending, Philsec filed a complaint against Ducat, et al. in the Regional Trial Court of Makati. Ducat filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia and forum non conveniens. The trial court granted Ducats motion even as it noted that Ducat was not a party in the US case.

ISSUES: 1. WON there is res judicata/litis pendentia 2. WON MTD for forum non conveniens proper HELD:

1.

While this court has given the effect of res judicata to foreign judgments in several cases, it was after the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to repel them on grounds allowed under the law. Actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes a prima facie evidence of the justness of the claims of a party, and as such, is subject to proof of the contrary. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court was even furnished copies of the pleadings in the US Court or apprised of the evidence presented thereat, to assure a proper determination of whether the issues then being litigated in the US court were exactly the issues raised in this case such that the judgment that might be rendered would constitute res judicata. The trial court arbitrarily dismissed the case even after finding that Ducat was not a party in the US case. NO. forum non conveniens not a ground for MTD under Rule 16 of ROC. It is within the discretion of the court to dismiss only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require the courts desistance.

2.

WOLFGANG ROEHR v. RODRIGUEZ FACTS: ROEHR (German citizen) and RODRIGUEZ (Filipina) married in Germany and subsequently ratified their marriage in the Philippines, they had 2 children. Respondent filed a declaration of nullity in Makati RTC, while petitioner also obtained a decree of divorce form Germany that provided, aside from the dissolution of marriage, the custody of their two children. ISSUES: 1. WON divorce decree subsists in our jurisdiction, and to what extent. HELD:

YES, but only to the dissolution of marriage, but not against the custody of their children. Divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. Furthermore, RTC has acknowledged the decree, granting the respondent capacity to marry again. However, as to the legal effects of the decree, on custody and property rights. It must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Sec. 50 ROC to give the effect of res judicata on these grounds. o So the court has to proceed to determine the issue regarding the custody of the two children born of the union of the parties. o As for the property rights, it is admitted by both parties that no conjugal or community property was acquired and no debts were incurred.

After two attempts to serve summons in Japan office, service was served through diplomatic channels upon defendants head office in Manila. Ministry of Foreign Affairs JP>JP Embassy in MLA>DFA Phils>Exec Judge RTC MLA>Dep. Sherriff Balingit>C.F. Main Office Decision rendered against defendant, but since it was unable to execute decision in Japan, a suit for enforcement was filed before RTC Manila.

ISSUES: 1. WON Japan had jurisdiction over SHARP.

HELD: YES. SHARP was doing business in Japan and deemed a resident of Japan, and amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts therein and may be deemed to have assented to the said courts lawful methods of serving process. Jurisdiction in personam over nonresidents, so as to sustains a money judgment, must be based on personal service within the state which renders judgment. Since the two attempts to serve summons failed, the Tokyo Court resolved to deliver the papers here in the Phils. The 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. Thus, the law of Japan determines the validity. And should be proven by SHARP that service was invalid against Japanese laws. Alternatively, processual presumption may apply, and in the purview of Philippine laws, the service was equivalent to proper government official. (SEC, IC, Superintendent of Banks) A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding the country from which it comes, until the contrary is shown. It is also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and the giving of due notice therein. The party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of proof of overcoming the presumption of its validity. NAGARMULL v. BINALBAGAN FACTS:

BOUDARD v. TAIT FACTS: Emilie Boudard as widow of Theodore Boudard obtained a judgment against Tait, the latters employer in Hanoi, French Indo-China. Mr. Boudard was Taits employee and was killed by the latters employees, though outside the fulfillment of a duty. Emilie Boudard filed a petition with the CFI of Manila for the execution of the Hanoi judgment but the court dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Hanoi Court, Tait not being a resident of that country. ISSUE: 1. HELD: WON the judgment in Hanoi may be executed in the country. NO. Appellants failed to show that the proceedings against appellee in Hanoi were in accordance to the laws of France in force. Furthermore, the documents presented are not copies of the judicial record of the proceedings against the appellee in the court of Hanoi., duly certified by the proper authorities there, whose signatures should be authenticated by the Consul, and that the Consul in the Phils. confirmed this fact. Apellee is not liable for the amount to which he was sentenced since he was not duly trued or even summoned in conformity of the law. He was not in Hanoi during the time mentions, and it is only effective if he was duly summoned. The decision of the Court of Hanoi is only prima facie evidence, until the adverse part admits proof of the contrary.

NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES v. CA FACTS: NOA and SHARP entered into an International Passenger Sales Agency Agreement, where the former authorized the latter to sell its air transportation tickets and to remit the proceeds. For failure to remit, plaintiff sued the defendant in Japan for damages.