Recognition of Foreign Judgments

107. Suzuki v. Office of the Solicitor General, 2 September 2020

FACTS:
1. Petitioner was born to Mr. Sadao Kumai Suzuki, a Japanese national, and Ms. Lorlie. Lopez Magno, a
Filipino citizen. Based on Identification Certificate No. 08-1954, issued by the Bureau of Immigration on
March 31, 2008, petitioner is a Filipino citizen.
2. petitioner's parents divorced. Lorlie married another Japanese national, Mr. Hikaru Hayashi
(Hayashi), in San Juan City, Metro Manila.
3. petitioner, then 16 years old, was adopted by Hayashi based on Japanese law. This was reflected in
Hayashi's Koseki or Family Register.
4. At 24 years old, petitioner sought to be recognized in the Philippines his adoption by Hayashi under
Japanese law. Thus, on May 24, 2013, he filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Adoption Decree
before the RTC of Marikina City.
5. RTC denied in its Order dated April 23, 2014. The RTC was convinced that RA 8043 (Inter-Country
Adoption Act of 1995) and RA 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998) govern all adoptions of Filipino citizens.
ISSUE: Whether under Philippine-jurisdiction a judicial recognition of a foreign decree of adoption is not
allowed.
RULING: No, 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. The classical formulation in international law
sees those customary rules accepted as binding result from the combination two elements: the established,
widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological element known as the opinion
juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the
practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it.
MAIN POINT: Relative to the enforcement of foreign judgments in the Philippines, it emerges that
there is a general right recognized within our body of laws, and affirmed by the Constitution, to seek
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, as well as a right to defend against such
enforcement on the grounds of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact.

Soft Law
 108. Pharmaceutical v. DOH, GR 173034, October 9, 2007
FACTS: Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued, Petitioner assails the RIRR for allegedly going beyond
the provisions of the Milk Code, thereby amending and expanding the coverage of said law. The defense of the
DOH is that the RIRR implements not only the Milk Code but also various international instruments regarding
infant and young child nutrition. It is respondents' position that said international instruments are deemed
part of the law of the land and therefore the DOH may implement them through the RIRR.

ISSUE: Whether the pertinent international instruments adverted to by respondents are part of the law of the
land.

RULING: No, Apparently, the WHA Resolution adopting the ICMBS and subsequent WHA Resolutions urging
member states to implement the ICMBS are merely recommendatory and legally non-binding. Thus, unlike
what has been done with the ICMBS whereby the legislature enacted most of the provisions into law which is
the Milk Code, the subsequent WHA Resolutions,30 specifically providing for exclusive breastfeeding from 0-
6 months, continued breastfeeding up to 24 months, and absolutely prohibiting advertisements and
promotions of breastmilk substitutes, have not been adopted as a domestic law.
MAIN POINT: ‘soft law’ such as resolutions and guidelines, which are not legally binding, but of persuasive
value, especially in guiding member states in their interpretation and application of international human
rights protection regimes.
Doctrine of Incorporation
Doctrine of Transformation

109. SOJ v. Lantion, GR 139465 *In the Philippines, statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they
conflict with the Constitution.
FACTS:
1. DOJ received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note Verbale containing a request for the
extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States.
2. private respondent, through counsel, wrote a letter dated July 1, 1999 addressed to petitioner
requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U.S. Government, as well as all documents and
papers submitted therewith; and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have
received copies of the requested papers. And requested that he be given at least a copy of, or access to, the
request of the United States Government, and after receiving a copy of the Diplomatic Note, a period of time to
amplify on his request.
3. petitioner, in a reply-letter denied the foregoing requests for the following reasons:
i. it is premature pending evaluation by this Department of the sufficiency of the extradition documents
ii. The information and documents obtained through grand jury process covered by strict secrecy rules
under United States law.
iii. This Department is not in a position to hold in abeyance proceedings in connection with an
extradition request.
ISSUE: Whether the RP-Extradition Treaty prevail over the constitution

RULING: No, The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals (or local courts) are
confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the
provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them,
so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for
the generally accepted principles of international law in observance of the observance of the Incorporation
Clause in the above-cited constitutional provision. In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable
and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates
that municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts for the reason that such courts are organs of
municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances. The fact that international law has been
made part of the law of the land does not pertain to or imply the primacy of international law over national or
municipal law in the municipal sphere. The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees
that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative
enactments.
MAIN POINT: Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect — a treaty may repeal
a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the constitution is the highest law of the
land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are
in conflict with the constitution .

110. Philip Morris v. CA, GR 91332, July 16, 1993 *While international law is made part of the law of
the land, it does not imply primacy of international law over national law.
FACTS: Petitioner, a foreign corporation filed a complaint for trademark infringement against Respondent,
Fortune tobacco, a PH corporation, on the basis of the Paris Convention which provides that a corporation
signatory to the convention may sue for trademark infringement without need of obtaining registration or a
license to do business in the PH, and without necessity of actually doing business in the PH.
A fundamental principle of Philippine Trademark Law is that actual use in commerce in the Philippines is a
pre-requisite to the acquisition of ownership over a trademark or a tradename.
ISSUE: Whether international law are superior to national legislative enactments
RULING: No, Following universal acquiescence and comity, our municipal law on trademarks regarding the
requirement of actual use in the Philippines must subordinate an international agreement inasmuch as the
apparent clash is being decided by a municipal tribunal. Withal, the fact that international law has been made
part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law in
the municipal sphere.
MAINPOINT: Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law are
given a standing equal, not superior, to national legislative enactments.