 Rule 39, Section 48 of the 1997
Rules on Civil Procedure - does reason giving greater force and
not limit the foreign judgment to a
particular type
Sec. 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:
(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
(b) In case of a judgment or final order
against a person, the 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.
 Philippine Supreme Court upheld
a foreign money judgment in
Asiavest Merchant Bankers v.
Court of Appeals
 Hilton v. Guyot
“…an action brought in a court of this
country to recover a sum of money
adjudged by a court of another country’s
judgment is prima facie evidence...”
 rules of comity, reciprocity,
and provision on Rules of
Court
In law, comity specifically refers
to legal reciprocity, the principle
that one jurisdiction will
extend certain courtesies to
other nations, or other
jurisdictions within the same
nation. This is particularly done
by recognizing the validity and
effect of their executive,
legislative, and judicial acts.
 Ingenholl v. Walter E. Olsen &
Co.
“…a better and more practical
dignity to the records of foreign
courts is that, where parties have
once litigated fairly a dispute in
the courts of a foreign country,
the same question ought not to
be tried and reexamined again by
the local courts.”
 Court ruled that the recognition
and enforceability of a foreign
judgment rested on the principle
of pacta sunt servanda and
comity of nations namely as to
the reciprocity and mutual
recognition by the foreign
jurisdiction
 Kuroda v. Jalandoni17 citing
Article 2, Section II of their
Constitution
“Generally accepted principles of
international law, by virtue of the
incorporation clause of the
Constitution, form part of the
laws of their land even if they do
not derive from treaty
obligations.”
 Philippines in refusing the
claims of China to recognize
and enforce its foreign
judgment is unacceptable and
unlawful considering that it is
inconsistent with its own laws
and jurisprudence which cited
international decisions and
principles of law. It appears that
the Philippines is confused and
oppose or contradict its own
Supreme Court decisions,
Rules of Court, 1987
Constitution and the doctrine
of incorporation
 Philippines has always been
inclined to international law such
as the codification of generally
accepted principles and
customary international law
through the creation of United
Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea.
 Philippines: such signing shall
not in any manner impair or
prejudice the sovereignty of
the Republic of the Philippines
 over any territory over which it
exercises sovereign authority
 The Philippines is always
committed to its core, with
upholding neighboring
diplomacy in building good
neighborly relations with and
bringing harmony, security
and prosperity to neighboring
countries, and concentrate on
the concept of amity, sincerity,
mutual benefit and
inclusiveness. As a coastal
state of the West Philippine Sea,
the Philippines has always been
a staunch force for
maintaining peace, stability,
and promoting cooperation
and development.
IV. Philippine Laws and
Jurisprudence Adheres to the
Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judgment
1) The People’s Republic of China
has submitted two contentions
concerning the adherence of the
Philippine laws and jurisprudence
to the recognition and enforcement
of foreign judgement. The Court
now addresses each of these.
A. Rule 39, Section 48 of the
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2) Rule 39, Section 48 of the 1997
Rules on Civil Procedure regulates
the enforcement of foreign
judgement to the laws and
jurisprudence of the land. It
provides two situations wherein
the effect of a judgment or final
order of a tribunal of a foreign
country have the jurisdiction to
render the judgment or final order.
3) First, (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. Second, (b) in case of a
judgment or final order against a
person, the judgment or final order
is presumptive evidence of a right
as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a
subsequent title.
4) 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.
5) This procedural code does not limit
the foreign judgment to a particular
type. Hence, various foreign court
orders may be enforceable in the
Philippines.
6) Notably, this rule was upheld in the
case of Hilton v. Guyot, a case
observed by the Philippines. It was
declared that:
“…an action brought in a court of
this country to recover a sum of
money adjudged by a court of
another country’s judgment is
prima facie evidence…”
7) The legal dictionary defines prima
facie evidence as the presumption
that a fact is true until proven
otherwise. It is a Latin term which
translates to “on the first
appearance.”
8) In relation to the previous case,
the Supreme Court of the
Philippines had concluded that
once the only requirement, proof of
fact, is satisfied, the recognition
and enforcement of a foreign
judgment or final order occurs as
1
the said foreign judgment
acquires a disputable presumption
of validity.
1
9) As China verified the foreign court
order, it contends that the decision
was final and conclusive.
B. Doctrine of Incorporation
10) Article 2, Section II of the
Constitution stipulates that the
Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy,
adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as
part of the law of the land and
adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all
nations.
11) This constitutional provision
embodies the incorporation
method, which allows the entrance
of certain sources of international
law into the domestic sphere by
mere constitutional declaration.
These sources are deemed to
have the force of the municipal
law.
12) Article 38(1) of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice, a
directive to the Court on how it
should resolve conflicts brought
before it, recognizes general
principles of law recognized by
civilized nations as one of the
widely-accepted sources of
international law.
13) The case of Kuroda v. Jalandoni
appertains the doctrine of
incorporation in its ruling. It was
held that “generally accepted
principles of international law, by
virtue of the incorporation clause
of the Constitution, form part of the
laws of their land even if they do
not derive from treaty obligations.”
This reaffirms that the Philippines
is bounded through the application
of incorporation.
14) China claims that the refusal of the
Philippines to recognize and
enforce its provided foreign
judgement is inconsistent with the
international law as well as its own
domestic law as previously cited.
Thus, it is unlawful for the
Philippines to contradict the past
decisions of the Supreme Court,
Rules of Court, 1987 Constitution,
and the incorporation method.
15) In the perspective of the Court,
most of the contentions of China
have merit. It was successful in
proving the recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgment in
the foreign and domestic sphere
from its provided previous
Supreme Court decisions, Rules of
Court, 1987 Constitution and the
doctrine of incorporation.
16) However, paragraph 34 and 43
from the memorial of China is
contradicting. The presumption
that its foreign judgment was final
and conclusive due to the proof of
fact is a dispensable condition as
the order may be repelled through
a want of want of jurisdiction, want
of notice to the party, collusion,
fraud, or clear mistake of law or
fact by the Philippines. This is to
provide the aggrieved party of the
foreign decision the chance to
challenge the ruling with the
burden of overcoming the
presumption of the validity.
17) In light of the foregoing
contentions, the Republic of the
Philippines contends against them.
The Philippines asserts its
consistent adherence to the
international laws and treaties for
the purpose of maintaining peace
and harmony with other states. 2
2
18) The Court finds that the
Philippines provided
counterarguments are extraneous
and immaterial to address the
issue raised by China. Additionally,
its contentions are merely
surmises, baseless and without
evidence. For these reasons, the
court notes that the former failed to
refute and rule out the allegations
against them. Thus, the court
concludes that the jurisprudence of
the Republic of the Philippines
must adhere to the judgement
ruled by the court of the People’s
Republic of China.