MIJARES VS RANADA
FACTS
May 9 1991 a complaint was filed by ten Filipino citizens representing a class of 10,000 members who
each alleged having suffered human rights abuses such as arbitrary detention, torture and rape in the
hands of police or military forces during the Marcos regime with the United States District Court (US
District Court), District of Hawaii, against the Estate of former Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos
(Marcos Estate). US District Court and Affirmed by US CA: awarded them $1,964,005,859.90 Petitioners
filed Complaint with Makati RTC for the enforcement of the Final Judgment
Marcos Estate filed a motion to dismiss, raising, among others, the non-payment of the correct filing
fees paying only P410. Petitioners claimed that an action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment is
not capable of pecuniary estimation
Makati RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice and opined that the subject matter of the
complaint was indeed capable of pecuniary estimation, as it involved a judgment rendered by a foreign
court ordering the payment of definit sums of money. The RTC estimated the proper amount of filing
fees was approximately P472million, which obviously had not been paid.
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
ISSUE:
WON the RTC of MAKATI erred in interpreting the action for the execution of foreign jdugment as a new
case, that it cannot be relitigated that it has once been decided between the same parties in one
country.
-YES.According to SC there is an evident distinction between a foreign judgment in an action in rem and
one in personam. for an action in rem, the foreign judgment is presumptive, and not conclusive, of a
right as between the parties and their susceptible to impeachment in our local courts on the grounds of
want of jurisdiction or notice to the party, collusion, fraud or clear mistake of law or fact.The party
aggrieved by the foreign judgment is entitled to defend against the enforcement of such decision in the
local forum. it is essential that thre should be an opportunity to challege the foreign judgment, in order
for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy.Consequently the party attacking a
foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity. There is a distinction
between a foreign judgment in rem and personam; it is essential that there should be an opportunity to
challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine.
Sec 48 rule 39-Effect of foreign judgement
Foreign judgement in rem- The foreign judgent is deemed conclusive upon the little to the thing,
Foreign judgment in personam - The foreign judgment is presumptive, and not conclusive, of a right as
between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent little.
