G.R. No.

139325 April 12, 2005 Philippines, pursuant to Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules
PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, LORETTA ANN P. of Court then in force.
ROSALES, HILDA B. NARCISO, SR. MARIANI
DIMARANAN, SFIC, and JOEL C. LAMANGAN in their RTC: Dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
behalf and on behalf of the Class Plaintiffs in Class Respondent judge opined that contrary to the petitioners'
Action No. MDL 840, United States District Court of submission, the subject matter of the complaint was
Hawaii, Petitioner, indeed capable of pecuniary estimation, as it involved a
vs. judgment rendered by a foreign court ordering the
HON. SANTIAGO JAVIER RANADA, in his capacity payment of definite sums of money, allowing for easy
as Presiding Judge of Branch 137, Regional Trial determination of the value of the foreign judgment. RTC
Court, Makati City, and the ESTATE OF FERDINAND estimated the proper amount of filing fees was
E. MARCOS, through its court appointed legal approximately Four Hundred Seventy Two Million Pesos,
representatives in Class Action MDL 840, United which obviously had not been paid.
States District Court of Hawaii, namely: Imelda R.
Marcos and Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Respondents. Petitioners submit that their action is incapable of
TINGA, J.: pecuniary estimation as the subject matter of the suit is
the enforcement of a foreign judgment, and not an action
The petitioners in this case are prominent victims of for the collection of a sum of money or recovery of
human rights violations who, deprived of the damages. They also point out that to require the class
opportunity to directly confront the man who once held plaintiffs to pay Four Hundred Seventy Two Million
absolute rule over this country, have chosen to do battle Pesos (P472,000,000.00) in filing fees would negate and
instead with the earthly representative, his estate. The render inutile the liberal construction ordained by the
clash has been for now interrupted by a trial court ruling, Rules of Court, as required by Section 6, Rule 1 of the
seemingly comported to legal logic, that required the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly the inexpensive
petitioners to pay a whopping filing fee of over Four disposition of every action.
Hundred Seventy-Two Million Pesos (P472,000,000.00)
in order that they be able to enforce a judgment awarded Commission on Human Rights (CHR) intervened: For
them by a foreign court. the CHR, the Makati RTC erred in interpreting the
action for the execution of a foreign judgment as a
Facts: new case, in violation of the principle that once a
On 9 May 1991, a complaint was filed with the United case has been decided between the same parties in
States District Court (US District Court), District of one country on the same issue with finality, it can no
Hawaii, against the Estate of former Philippine President longer be relitigated again in another country. The
Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos Estate). The action was CHR likewise invokes the principle of comity, and of
brought forth by ten Filipino citizens who each vested rights.
alleged having suffered human rights abuses such Petitioners' complaint may have been lodged against an
as arbitrary detention, torture and rape in the hands estate, but it is clearly based on a judgment, the Final
of police or military forces during the Marcos Judgment of the US District Court. The provision does
regime. The Alien Tort Act was invoked as basis for the not make any distinction between a local judgment and a
US District Court's jurisdiction over the complaint, as it foreign judgment, and where the law does not
involved a suit by aliens for tortious violations of distinguish, we shall not distinguish.
international law. Plaintiffs alleged that the class
consisted of approximately ten thousand (10,000) Issue: WON a foreign judgment can be recognized in
members; hence, joinder of all these persons was the Philippines
impracticable.
Ruling: YES
Trial ensued, and subsequently a jury rendered a The rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations
verdict and an award of compensatory and have established a usage among civilized states by
exemplary damages in favor of the plaintiff class. which final judgments of foreign courts of competent
Then, on 3 February 1995, the US District Court, jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered
presided by Judge Manuel L. Real, rendered a Final efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in
Judgment awarding the plaintiff class a total of One different countries. The conditions required by the
Billion Nine Hundred Sixty Four Million Five Thousand Philippines for recognition and enforcement of a foreign
Eight Hundred Fifty Nine Dollars and Ninety Cents judgment were originally contained in Section 311 of the
($1,964,005,859.90). The Final Judgment was eventually Code of Civil Procedure, which was taken from the
affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. California Code of Civil Procedure which, in turn, was
derived from the California Act of March 11, 1872.
Petitioner’s claim: Present petitioners filed Complaint Remarkably, the procedural rule now outlined in Section
with the (Makati RTC) for the enforcement of the Final 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure has remained
Judgment. They argued that since the Marcos Estate unchanged down to the last word in nearly a century.
failed to file a petition for certiorari with the US Supreme Section 48 states:
Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had
affirmed the Final Judgment, the decision of the US SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments. —
District Court had become final and executory, and The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign
hence should be recognized and enforced in the
 country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the This is an intriguing argument, but ultimately it is self-
judgment is as follows: evident that while the subject matter of the action is
(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific undoubtedly the enforcement of a foreign judgment, the
thing, the judgment is conclusive upon effect of a providential award would be the adjudication
the title to the thing; of a sum of money. Perhaps in theory, such an action is
(b) In case of a judgment against a primarily for "the enforcement of the foreign judgment,"
person, the judgment is presumptive but there is a certain obtuseness to that sort of argument
evidence of a right as between the since there is no denying that the enforcement of the
parties and their successors in interest foreign judgment will necessarily result in the award of a
by a subsequent title; definite sum of money.
In either case, the judgment or final order may
be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, There is also consensus as to the requisites for
want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or recognition of a foreign judgment and the defenses
clear mistake of law or fact. against the enforcement thereof. As earlier discussed,
the exceptions enumerated in Section 48, Rule 39 have
It is clear then that it is usually necessary for an remain unchanged since the time they were adapted in
action to be filed in order to enforce a foreign this jurisdiction from long standing American rules. The
judgment even if such judgment has conclusive requisites and exceptions as delineated under Section
effect as in the case of in rem actions, if only for the 48 are but a restatement of generally accepted principles
purpose of allowing the losing party an opportunity to of international law. Section 98 of The Restatement,
challenge the foreign judgment, and in order for the court Second, Conflict of Laws, states that "a valid judgment
to properly determine its efficacy. Consequently, the rendered in a foreign nation after a fair trial in a
party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of contested proceeding will be recognized in the United
overcoming the presumption of its validity. States," and on its face, the term "valid" brings into play
Petitioners appreciate this distinction, and rely upon it to requirements such notions as valid jurisdiction over the
support the proposition that the subject matter of the subject matter and parties.59 Similarly, the notion that
complaint¾the enforcement of a foreign judgment¾is fraud or collusion may preclude the enforcement of a
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Admittedly the foreign judgment finds affirmation with foreign
proposition, as it applies in this case, is counter-intuitive, jurisprudence and commentators,60 as well as the
and thus deserves strict scrutiny. For in all practical doctrine that the foreign judgment must not constitute "a
intents and purposes, the matter at hand is capable of clear mistake of law or fact."61 And finally, it has been
pecuniary estimation, down to the last cent. In the recognized that "public policy" as a defense to the
assailed Order, the respondent judge pounced upon this recognition of judgments serves as an umbrella for a
point without equivocation: variety of concerns in international practice which
may lead to a denial of recognition.62
The Rules use the term "where the value of the
subject matter cannot be estimated." The The viability of the public policy defense against the
subject matter of the present case is the enforcement of a foreign judgment has been recognized
judgment rendered by the foreign court ordering in this jurisdiction.63 This defense allows for the
defendant to pay plaintiffs definite sums of application of local standards in reviewing the
money, as and for compensatory damages. The foreign judgment, especially when such judgment
Court finds that the value of the foreign judgment creates only a presumptive right, as it does in cases
can be estimated; indeed, it can even be easily wherein the judgment is against a person.64 The
determined. The Court is not minded to defense is also recognized within the international
distinguish between the enforcement of a sphere, as many civil law nations adhere to a broad
judgment and the amount of said judgment, and public policy exception which may result in a denial of
separate the two, for purposes of determining recognition when the foreign court, in the light of the
the correct filing fees. Similarly, a plaintiff suing choice-of-law rules of the recognizing court, applied the
on promissory note for P1 million cannot be wrong law to the case.65 The public policy defense
allowed to pay only P400 filing fees (sic), on the can safeguard against possible abuses to the easy
reasoning that the subject matter of his suit is resort to offshore litigation if it can be demonstrated
not the P1 million, but the enforcement of the that the original claim is noxious to our constitutional
promissory note, and that the value of such values.
"enforcement" cannot be estimated.35
There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or
Petitioners go on to add that among the actions the conventions that requires the Philippines to recognize
Court has recognized as being incapable of pecuniary foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for the
estimation include legality of conveyances and money enforcement thereof. However, generally accepted
deposits,38 validity of a mortgage,39 the right to principles of international law, by virtue of the
support,40 validity of documents,41 rescission of incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of
contracts,42 specific performance,43 and validity or the laws of the land even if they do not derive from
annulment of judgments.44 It is urged that an action for treaty obligations. The classical formulation in
enforcement of a foreign judgment belongs to the same international law sees those customary rules accepted
class. 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 assessment of docket fees is alien to generally accepted
the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or practices and principles in international law. Indeed,
necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that there are grave concerns in conditioning the amount of
the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the the filing fee on the pecuniary award or the value of the
existence of a rule of law requiring it. property subject of the foreign decision. Such pecuniary
award will almost certainly be in foreign denomination,
While the definite conceptual parameters of the computed in accordance with the applicable laws and
recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments standards of the forum. The vagaries of inflation, as well
have not been authoritatively established, the Court as the relative low-income capacity of the Filipino, to
can assert with certainty that such an undertaking is date may very well translate into an award virtually
among those generally accepted principles of unenforceable in this country, despite its integral validity,
international law. As earlier demonstrated, there is a if the docket fees for the enforcement thereof were
widespread practice among states accepting in principle predicated on the amount of the award sought to be
the need for such recognition and enforcement, albeit enforced. The theory adopted by respondent judge and
subject to limitations of varying degrees. The fact that the Marcos Estate may even lead to absurdities, such as
there is no binding universal treaty governing the if applied to an award involving real property situated in
practice is not indicative of a widespread rejection of places such as the United States or Scandinavia where
the principle, but only a disagreement as to the real property values are inexorably high. We cannot very
imposable specific rules governing the procedure for well require that the filing fee be computed based on the
recognition and enforcement. value of the foreign property as determined by the
standards of the country where it is located.
Aside from the widespread practice, it is indubitable
that the procedure for recognition and enforcement As crafted, Rule 141 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
is embodied in the rules of law, whether statutory or avoids unreasonableness, as it recognizes that the
jurisprudential, adopted in various foreign subject matter of an action for enforcement of a foreign
jurisdictions. In the Philippines, this is evidenced judgment is the foreign judgment itself, and not the right-
primarily by Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court duty correlatives that resulted in the foreign judgment. In
which has existed in its current form since the early this particular circumstance, given that the
1900s. Certainly, the Philippine legal system has long complaint is lodged against an estate and is based
ago accepted into its jurisprudence and procedural rules on the US District Court's Final Judgment, this
the viability of an action for enforcement of foreign foreign judgment may, for purposes of classification
judgment, as well as the requisites for such valid under the governing procedural rule, be deemed as
enforcement, as derived from internationally accepted subsumed under Section 7(b)(3) of Rule 141, i.e.,
doctrines. Again, there may be distinctions as to the within the class of "all other actions not involving
rules adopted by each particular state,69 but they all property." Thus, only the blanket filing fee of
prescind from the premise that there is a rule of law minimal amount is required.
obliging states to allow for, however generally, the
recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. One more word. It bears noting that Section 48, Rule
The bare principle, to our mind, has attained the 39 acknowledges that the Final Judgment is not
status of opinio juris in international practice. conclusive yet, but presumptive evidence of a right
of the petitioners against the Marcos Estate.
This is a significant proposition, as it acknowledges that Moreover, the Marcos Estate is not precluded to
the procedure and requisites outlined in Section 48, present evidence, if any, of want of jurisdiction, want
Rule 39 derive their efficacy not merely from the of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
procedural rule, but by virtue of the incorporation mistake of law or fact. This ruling, decisive as it is on
clause of the Constitution. Rules of procedure are the question of filing fees and no other, does not render
promulgated by the Supreme Court, and could very well verdict on the enforceability of the Final Judgment before
be abrogated or revised by the high court itself. Yet the the courts under the jurisdiction of the Philippines, or for
Supreme Court is obliged, as are all State components, that matter any other issue which may legitimately be
to obey the laws of the land, including generally presented before the trial court. Such issues are to be
accepted principles of international law which form part litigated before the trial court, but within the confines of
thereof, such as those ensuring the qualified recognition the matters for proof as laid down in Section 48, Rule 39.
and enforcement of foreign judgments. On the other hand, the speedy resolution of this claim by
the trial court is encouraged, and contumacious delay of
Thus, relative to the enforcement of foreign the decision on the merits will not be brooked by this
judgments in the Philippines, it emerges that there is Court.
a general right recognized within our body of laws, and WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
affirmed by the Constitution, to seek recognition and orders are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE, and a new order
enforcement of foreign judgments, as well as a right REINSTATING Civil Case No. 97-1052 is hereby issued.
to defend against such enforcement on the grounds No costs.
of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, SO ORDERED.
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

The preclusion of an action for enforcement of a foreign