Private International Law
CASE NO. 12
Mijares v Ranada
G.R No. 139325 | DATE: April 12, 2005 | TINGA
TOPIC: Foreign Judgment
DIGEST BY: HAWK
RECITATION-READY SUMMARY
In this case, a complaint was filed with the US District Court, District of Hawaii, against the Marcos Estate. The action was brought
forth by ten Filipino citizens 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. The US District Court rendered a Final Judgment awarding the
plaintiff class a total of $1,964,005,859.90. Thereafter, petitioners filed Complaint with Makati RTC for the enforcement of the Final
Judgment. However, respondent Judge Santiago Javier Ranada of the Makati RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice
because 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 definite sums of money.
SC held that the subject matter of the complaint was indeed capable of pecuniary estimation, the subject matter of the present case
is the judgment rendered by the foreign court ordering defendant to pay plaintiffs definite sums of money, as and for compensatory
damages. Thus, SC finds that the value of the foreign judgment can be estimated. However, Judge Ranada erred in using Section
7(a), Rule 141 as basis for the computation of the filing fee of over P472 Million because the basis for computation is Section 7(b)(3)
of Rule 141, i.e., within the class of "all other actions not involving property." Thus, only the blanket filing fee of minimal amount is
required.
In this case, the petitioners thus paid the correct amount of filing fees.
PARTIES
Plaintiff/Petitioner Defendant/Respondent
PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, HILDA B. HON. SANTIAGO JAVIER RANADA, in his capacity as Presiding
NARCISO, SR. MARIANI DIMARANAN, SFIC, and JOEL C. Judge of Branch 137, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, and the
LAMANGAN in their behalf and on behalf of the Class Plaintiffs ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, through its court appointed
in Class Action No. MDL 840, United States District Court of legal representatives in Class Action MDL 840, United States
Hawaii District Court of Hawaii, namely: Imelda R. Marcos and Ferdinand
Marcos, Jr.
CASE DOCTRINE(S)
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.
While the definite conceptual parameters of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments have not been authoritatively
established, the Court can assert with certainty that such an undertaking is among those generally accepted principles of
international law. As earlier demonstrated, there is a widespread practice among states accepting in principle the need for such
recognition and enforcement, albeit subject to limitations of varying degrees. The fact that there is no binding universal treaty
governing the practice is not indicative of a widespread rejection of the principle, but only a disagreement as to the imposable
specific rules governing the procedure for recognition and enforcement. Aside from the widespread practice, it is indubitable that the
procedure for recognition and enforcement is embodied in the rules of law, whether statutory or jurisprudential, adopted in various
1
Private International Law
foreign jurisdictions. In the Philippines, this is evidenced primarily by Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which has existed in its
current form since the early 1900s.
A. FACTS
● On 9 May 1991, a complaint was filed with the US District Court, District of Hawaii, against the Marcos Estate. The
action was brought forth by ten Filipino citizens 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.
● The Alien Tort Act was invoked as basis for the US District Court's jurisdiction over the complaint, as it involved a suit
by aliens for tortious violations of international law. These plaintiffs brought the action on their own behalf and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, particularly consisting of all current civilian citizens of the
Philippines, their heirs and beneficiaries, who between 1972 and 1987 were tortured, summarily executed or had
disappeared while in the custody of military or paramilitary groups.
● Trial ensued, and subsequently a jury rendered a verdict and an award of compensatory and exemplary damages in
favor of the plaintiff class. Then, the US District Court, presided by Judge Manuel L. Real, rendered a Final Judgment
awarding the plaintiff class a total of One Billion Nine Hundred Sixty Four Million Five Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty
Nine Dollars and Ninety Cents ($1,964,005,859.90).
● The present petitioners filed Complaint with Makati RTC for the enforcement of the Final Judgment. They argued
that since the decision of the US District Court had become final and executory, it should be recognized and enforced
in the Philippines, pursuant to Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court then in force.
● Marcos Estate filed a motion to dismiss, raising the non-payment of the correct filing fees. It alleged that petitioners
had only paid P410.00 as docket and filing fees, notwithstanding the fact that they sought to enforce a monetary
amount of damages in the amount of over US$2.25 Billion. In response, the petitioners claimed that an action for the
enforcement of a foreign judgment is not capable of pecuniary estimation; hence, a filing fee of P410.00 was proper,
pursuant to Section 7(c) of Rule 141.
● Respondent Judge Santiago Javier Ranada of the Makati RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice because
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 definite sums of money, allowing for easy determination of the value of
the foreign judgment. On that score, Section 7(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Civil Procedure would find application,
and the RTC estimated the proper amount of filing fees was approximately Four Hundred Seventy Two Million Pesos,
which obviously had not been paid.
● Petitioners submit that their action is incapable of pecuniary estimation as the subject matter of the suit is the
enforcement of a foreign judgment, and not an action for the collection of a sum of money or recovery of damages.
Petitioners also invoke Section 11, Article III of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, which provides that "Free access
to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty," a mandate which is essentially defeated by the required exorbitant filing fee.
● The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) was permitted to intervene in this case. It urged that the petition of
petitioners be [Link] the CHR, the Makati RTC erred in interpreting the action for the execution of a foreign
judgment as a new case, in violation of the principle that once a case has been decided between the same parties in
one country on the same issue with finality, it can no longer be relitigated again in another country.
2
Private International Law
● An examination of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court readily evinces that the respondent judge ignored the clear letter of
the law when he concluded that the filing fee be computed based on the total sum claimed or the stated value of the
property in litigation.
● In dismissing the complaint, the respondent judge relied on Section 7(a), Rule 141 as basis for the computation of
the filing fee of over P472 Million. The provision states:
SEC. 7. Clerk of Regional Trial Court.-
(a) For filing an action or a permissive counterclaim or money claim against an estate not based on
judgment, xxx or for filing with leave of court a third-party, fourth-party, etc., complaint, or a complaint
in intervention, and for all clerical services in the same time, if the total sum claimed, exclusive of
interest, or the started value of the property in litigation.
B. LOWER COURT DECISIONS (WALA RA NAKO GI INCLUDE DIRI ANG RTC MAKATI DECISION KAY INDICATED RA SA FACTS
PARA DI PUD CONFUSING)
C. ISSUE(S)
Whether the action filed with the lower court is a “money claim against an estate not based on judgment.”
D. RULINGS (S)
Conclusion: No, the action filed with the lower court is a “money claim against an estate based on judgment.”
Rule of Law: Petitioners' complaint may have been lodged against an estate, but it is clearly based on a judgment, the
Final Judgment of the US District Court.
A reading of Section 7 in its entirety reveals several instances wherein the filing fee is computed on the basis of the
amount of the relief sought, or on the value of the property in litigation. The filing fee for requests for extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage is based on the amount of indebtedness or the mortgagee's claim. In special proceedings
involving properties such as for the allowance of wills, the filing fee is again based on the value of the property. The
aforecited rules evidently have no application to petitioners' complaint.
It is worth noting that the provision (Section 7(a), Rule 141) also provides that in real actions, the assessed value or
estimated value of the property shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees. Yet
again, this provision does not apply in the case at bar. A real action is one where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of
real property or an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property.
Application: In this case, neither the complaint nor the award of damages adjudicated by the US District Court
involves any real property of the Marcos Estate.
Thus, respondent judge was in clear and serious error when he concluded that the filing fees should be computed on
the basis of the schematic table of Section 7(a), as the action involved pertains to a claim against an estate based on
judgment.
3
Private International Law
E. ADDITIONAL NOTES:
WHAT PROVISION, IF ANY, THEN SHOULD APPLY IN DETERMINING THE FILING FEES FOR AN ACTION TO ENFORCE A
FOREIGN JUDGMENT?
Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure has remained unchanged down to the last word in nearly a century.
Section 48 states:
SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments. — The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing;
(b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment 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.
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 deemed conclusive upon the title to the thing, while in an action 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 title .
However, in both cases, the foreign judgment is 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. Thus, 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 there should be
an opportunity to challenge 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.
The rules are silent as to what initiatory procedure must be undertaken in order to enforce a foreign judgment in the
Philippines. But there is no question that the filing of a civil complaint is an appropriate measure for such purpose. A civil
action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, and clearly an action to enforce a
foreign judgment is in essence a vindication of a right prescinding either from a "conclusive judgment upon title" or the
"presumptive evidence of a right."
AS TO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING FROM THE ENFORCEMENT OF A FOREIGN JUDGMENT, AND
THAT ARISING FROM THE FACTS OR ALLEGATIONS THAT OCCASIONED THE FOREIGN JUDGMENT.
Cause of action arising from the enforcement of a foreign Cause of action arising from the facts or allegations that
judgment occasioned the foreign judgment
Pertain to set of facts Pertain to set of facts
For example, in a complaint for damages against a For example, in a complaint for the enforcement of
tortfeasor, the cause of action emanates from the a foreign judgment awarding damages from the
violation of the right of the complainant through the same tortfeasor, for the violation of the same right
act or omission of the respondent. through the same manner of action, the cause of
action derives not from the tortious act but from
the foreign judgment itself.
As to proof, the complainant will have to establish As to proof, in an action to enforce a foreign
before the court the tortious act or omission judgment, the matter left for proof is the foreign
committed by the tortfeasor, who in turn is allowed judgment itself, and not the facts from which it
to rebut these factual allegations or prove prescinds.
extenuating circumstances. Extensive litigation is
thus conducted on the facts, and from there the
right to and amount of damages are assessed.
4
Private International Law
The Rules use the term "where the value of the subject matter cannot be estimated." The subject matter of the present case is
the judgment rendered by the foreign court ordering defendant to pay plaintiffs definite sums of money, as and for
compensatory damages. The Court finds that the value of the foreign judgment can be estimated; indeed, it can even be easily
determined. The Court is not minded to distinguish between the enforcement of a judgment and the amount of said judgment,
and separate the two, for purposes of determining the correct filing fees. Similarly, a plaintiff suing on promissory note for P1
million cannot be allowed to pay only P400 filing fees (sic), on the reasoning that the subject matter of his suit is not the P1
million, but the enforcement of the promissory note, and that the value of such "enforcement" cannot be estimated.
AS TO JURISDICTION (MTC or RTC)
Petitioners raise the point that a declaration that an action for enforcement of foreign judgment may be capable of pecuniary
estimation might lead to an instance wherein a first level court such as the Municipal Trial Court would have jurisdiction to
enforce a foreign judgment. But under the statute defining the jurisdiction of first level courts, B.P. 129, such courts are not
vested with jurisdiction over actions for the enforcement of foreign judgments.
Section 33 of B.P. 129 refers to instances wherein the cause of action or subject matter pertains to an assertion of rights and
interests over property or a sum of money. But as earlier pointed out, the subject matter of an action to enforce a foreign
judgment is the foreign judgment itself, and the cause of action arising from the adjudication of such judgment.
An examination of Section 19(6), B.P. 129 reveals that the instant complaint for enforcement of a foreign judgment, even if
capable of pecuniary estimation, would fall under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, thus negating the fears of the
petitioners. Indeed, an examination of the provision indicates that it can be relied upon as jurisdictional basis with respect to
actions for enforcement of foreign judgments, provided that no other court or office is vested jurisdiction over such complaint.
Thus, the Court are comfortable in asserting the obvious, that the complaint to enforce the US District Court judgment is one
capable of pecuniary estimation. But at the same time, it is also an action based on judgment against an estate, thus placing it
beyond the ambit of Section 7(a) of Rule 141.
WHAT PROVISION THEN GOVERNS THE PROPER COMPUTATION OF THE FILING FEES OVER THE INSTANT COMPLAINT?
FOR THIS CASE AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED INSTANCES, COURT FIND THAT IT IS COVERED BY SECTION 7(B)(3),
INVOLVING AS IT DOES, "OTHER ACTIONS NOT INVOLVING PROPERTY."
Given that the complaint is lodged against an estate and is based on the US District Court's Final Judgment, this foreign
judgment may, for purposes of classification under the governing procedural rule, be deemed as subsumed under Section 7(b)
(3) of Rule 141, i.e., within the class of "all other actions not involving property." Thus, only the blanket filing fee of minimal
amount is required.
The petitioners thus paid the correct amount of filing fees.
AS TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (regarding foreign judgments)
Even if there is no unanimity as to the applicable theory behind the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or a
universal treaty rendering it obligatory force, there is consensus that the viability of such recognition and enforcement is
essential. Steiner and Vagts note:
The notion of unconnected bodies of national law on private international law, each following a quite separate path, is
not one conducive to the growth of a transnational community encouraging travel and commerce among its members.
There is a contemporary resurgence of writing stressing the identity or similarity of the values that systems of public
and private international law seek to further – a community interest in common, or at least reasonable, rules on these
matters in national legal systems. And such generic principles as reciprocity play an important role in both fields.
Salonga, whose treatise on private international law is of worldwide renown, points out:
5
Private International Law
Whatever be the theory as to the basis for recognizing foreign judgments, there can be little dispute that the end is to
protect the reasonable expectations and demands of the parties. Where the parties have submitted a matter for
adjudication in the court of one state, and proceedings there are not tainted with irregularity, they may fairly be
expected to submit, within the state or elsewhere, to the enforcement of the judgment issued by the court.
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.
While the definite conceptual parameters of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments have not been
authoritatively established, the Court can assert with certainty that such an undertaking is among those generally accepted
principles of international law. As earlier demonstrated, there is a widespread practice among states accepting in principle
the need for such recognition and enforcement, albeit subject to limitations of varying degrees. The fact that there is no
binding universal treaty governing the practice is not indicative of a widespread rejection of the principle, but only a
disagreement as to the imposable specific rules governing the procedure for recognition and enforcement. Aside from the
widespread practice, it is indubitable that the procedure for recognition and enforcement is embodied in the rules of law,
whether statutory or jurisprudential, adopted in various foreign jurisdictions. In the Philippines, this is evidenced primarily by
Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which has existed in its current form since the early 1900s.
The procedure and requisites outlined in Section 48, Rule 39 derive their efficacy not merely from the procedural rule, but by
virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution. Rules of procedure are promulgated by the Supreme Court, and could
very well be abrogated or revised by the high court itself. Yet the Supreme Court is obliged, as are all State components, to
obey the laws of the land, including generally accepted principles of international law which form part thereof, such as those
ensuring the qualified recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
Thus, 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.
One more word. It bears noting that Section 48, Rule 39 acknowledges that the Final Judgment is not conclusive yet, but
presumptive evidence of a right of the petitioners against the Marcos Estate. Moreover, the Marcos Estate is not precluded to
present evidence, if any, of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. This
ruling, decisive as it is on the question of filing fees and no other, does not render verdict on the enforceability of the Final
Judgment before the courts under the jurisdiction of the Philippines, or for that matter any other issue which may legitimately
be presented before the trial court. Such issues are to be litigated before the trial court, but within the confines of the matters
for proof as laid down in Section 48, Rule 39. On the other hand, the speedy resolution of this claim by the trial court is
encouraged, and contumacious delay of the decision on the merits will not be brooked by this Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE, and a new order REINSTATING
Civil Case.
