Dilag vs. IAC respondent herein) and his agents to desist from entering and
Arellano wresting possession
• as parent of the late Herminio Arellano who had died in a • MTD by respondents herein
vehicular accident ◦ on the ground: no jurisdiction to annul a judgment of
• truck owned by spouses Pablo and Socorro Dilag, another branch of the same. - denied
• awarded by the trial court Damages • Arellano MR and exception to the bond
◦ and offered a counterbond double that of the Dilag
Dilag spouses children. - denied
• filed before the Court a petition for relief • Arellano filed his petition for certiorari, prohibition and/or
• dismissed injunction with preliminary mandatory injunction and
damages -> CA
Writ of Execution issued CA: simulated sale between Dilag sps and childred executed in
• Notice of Levy on Execution was annotated on TCT No. fraud of creditors
30137 on February 21, 1979, covering a parcel of land in
Dumangas, Iloilo present petition for certiorari by the Dilag -> SC
◦ TCT - Adverse Claim dated March 11, 1974 filed by
SC: Petitioners' contentions do not hold water.
Dilags to protect their rights and interests as vendees
• Lot - sold at public auction by the Provincial Sheriff
At the time of the levy on execution in Civil Case No. 8714 the
◦ Dilag spouses failed to exercise their right of Dilag spouses were still the registered owners of Lot 288 as
redemption, shown in TCT No. 30137 and they were also the declared owners of
◦ Abs Deed of Sale to Arellano Lot 1927 as shown in Tax Declaration No. 411900-3039.
◦ writ of possession was issued on December 20, 1982 • title was issued on August 14, 1981, several days ahead of
◦ Return of Service - attested to the fact that on December the deed of sale, dated August 26, 1981 on which the new
22, 1982, delivery of possession of the subject lot title in the name of the petitioners was based, and inscribed
◦ Arellano sold Lot No. 288 to Marcelino Florete Jr. and on August 27, 1981. Clearly the Deed of Absolute Sale in
Leon Coo favor of petitioners herein executed in 1974 after the
filing of Civil Case No. 8714 was a simulated and
Dilag children filed Civil Case No. 15085 for the annulment of fictitious transaction to defraud Arellano who obtained a
decision money judgment against the parents of petitioners.
• “levy on execution on TCT No. 30137 was illegal since it He however recognized Arellano's right of ownership when he was
was made on property no longer owned by judgment debtors notified of the delivery of possession to Arellano by the Provincial
(the Dilag spouses” Sheriff as evidenced by a signed delivery receipt, dated December
12, 1983.
• petitioner obtained an order for the issuance of a writ of
Sec. 13. How execution for the delivery or restitution of property execution.
enforced. — The officer must enforce an execution for the delivery • City Sheriff levied on three (3) parcels of land
or restitution of property by ousting therefrom the person against • notice of the sale of said lots was issued by the Sheriff and
whom the judgment is rendered and placing the judgment creditor published in the "Daily Record"
in possession of such property, and by levying as hereinafter • sold in favor of petitioner
provided upon so much of the property of the judgment debtor as • de Vera and Santos filed an action to annul the levy, notice of
will satisfy the amount of the judgment and costs included in the sale, sale at public auction and final deed of sale
writ of execution. • Petitioner: IPV and sale not reg
When the Dilag children (petitioners herein) filed Civil Case no.
LC: sustained validity of levy and sale
15085 on July 5, 1983, they were not in possession of the property in
CA: lots could not be legally levied upon
question. There was therefore no factual and legal basis for the
• at the time of the execution sale, the judgment debtor was no
restraining ordering Arellano and/or dated July 8, 1983 of the lower
court ordering Arellano and/or his agents to desist from entering Lot longer the owner thereof;
No. 288. Thus Rule 39 Sec. 13 relied upon by petitioners will not
apply in the case at bar. SC: reversed the judgment of the respondent appellate court and rule
in favor of the herein petitioner.
• Sale of real estate becomes legally effective against third
Campillo v CA persons only from the date of its registration.
petition for review on certiorari purchasers at execution sales should bear in mind that the rule of
only issue is: who has a better right or title to the herein disputed two caveat emptor applies to such sales, that the sheriff does not
(2) parcels of land — warrant the title to real property sold by him as sheriff, and that it is
• Simplicio Santos who earlier purchased them in a private sale not incumbent on him to place the purchaser in possession of such
but failed to register his sale, or property, still the rule applies that a person dealing with registered
• petitioner Sostenes Campillo who subsequently purchased land is not required to go behind the register to determine the
condition of the property and he is merely charged with notice of the
them at an execution sale and obtained a certificate of title.
burdens on the property which are noted on the face of the register or
the certificate of title. Hence, the petitioner herein, as the purchaser
FACTS
in the execution sale of the registered land in suit, acquires such right
• Tomas de Vera and his wife Felisa Serafico sold two (2)
and interest as appears in the certificate of title unaffected by prior
parcels of land to Simplicio Santos lien or encumbrances not noted therein. This must be so in order to
◦ never presented for registration in the office of the preserve the efficacy and conclusiveness of the certificate of title
Registry of Deeds which is sanctified under our Torrens system of land registration.
• Campillo obtained a judgment for a sum of money against
Tomas de Vera – became F&X
WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the respondent appellate SC:
court is hereby reversed and set aside, and the judgment of the lower
court is reinstated. Without pronouncement as to costs. Petitioners’ claim based on prescription also on the alleged sale of
the same by Emiliano Pacheco in January 1939, and its sale by
PACHECO Rafael in September 1964, to Ciriaco Pacheco, who sold a portion
petition for review on certiorari thereof, Lot No. 4, to Estrella Razo-Rey on December 23, 1965.
Petitioner Abitria likewise claimed that he purchased Lot No. 5 from
FACTS Emiliano Pacheco on April 28, 1950.
• Emiliano Pacheco sold to Rafael Pacheco some 1,170 square
meters On these claims, the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon declared as
• mortgaged by Rafael Pacheco to PNB follows:
• sold at public auction upon foreclosure
• repurchased by Rafael Pacheco ". . . . Be that as it may, Ciriaco Pacheco asserted that after his father
• Rafael Pacheco sold the said land to Ciriaco Pacheco - sold a bought the property from Emiliano Pacheco sometime in 1939, he
portion thereof to his co-petitioner, Estrella Razo-Rey and his father occupied the land and their possession was public,
• civil case entitled "Daniel Hernandez v. Emiliano Pacheco," open, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted, adverse and in concept of
owner. The land they occupied is the very land which he is at present
◦ in favor of the plaintiff
occupying or Lot 3 indicating Lot 4 which he later sold to Mrs.
◦ lot levied upon and sold at public auction. Rey. He further alleged that his late father even constructed a house
◦ Hernandez, herein private respondent, was the purchaser. where they lived on Lot 4. Unfortunately, the house built by his
• Hernandez filed a complaint against the petitioners father was burned down during the conflagration that hit that district
◦ refusal to vacate of Donsol in 1963. However, after the conflagration. Ciriaco was
◦ dismissed CFI able to construct his own house but already on Lot 3. Considering
◦ declaring the petitioners as the lawful owners of the the long and uninterrupted possession of Ciriaco Pacheco under
disputed property claim of ownership starting from 1939 up to the present, it is
▪ prescription believed that he has acquired Lot 3 as well as Lot 4 by
• appealed to the CA - reversed acquisitive prescription.".
◦ acquisitive prescription was untenable because their
possession of the property in dispute was interrupted The above finding was not disputed by Ciriaco Pacheco and
when the Philippine National Bank acquired it at the Estrella Razo-Rey. In fact, they impliedly agreed with the trial
foreclosure sale in 1959 and held it for one year before it court that they had acquired the disputed property by virtue of
was repurchased by Rafael Pacheco prescription and thereafter kept silent about the alleged sale.
◦ not having registered his opposition to the attachment and Although it was only the purchase made by Benvenuto Abitria which
execution sale of the lots he was claiming as his own the trial court held as valid and binding, the other two petitioners did
not challenge its ruling insofar as it impliedly rejected their own
claim of purchase. Having failed to do so, they are now estopped
from asserting that they had bought the lands they are now Although both the trial court and respondent court accepted the
claiming. petitioner’s claim of such a sale, the subject thereof was, however,
not positively identified. The land purchased by Rafael from Ciriano
The respondent court held that as the land was acquired in the Pacheco was covered by Tax Declaration No. 12490 with an area of
foreclosure proceedings by the PNB in 1959, the ten-year period 4,698 square meters, and in his name. On the other hand, the land
of acquisitive prescription was not completed. 14 As a foreclosed by the bank, which Ciriaco’s father later repurchased and
consequence of the cut-off caused by the take-over of the land by the then sold to him, was covered by Tax Declaration No. 3431 with an
bank, Rafael Pacheco ceased to be the possessor of the property area of 1,170 square meters, and in the name of Rafael Pacheco. It
for more than one year and the period of prescription was thus was not show by Ciriaco that Tax Declaration No. 3431 revised in
interrupted. 15 The applicable provision is Article 1121 of the Civil part or in whole Tax Declaration No. 12490. Nevertheless, whether
Code, reading as follows: or not the subject of the sale was the land in dispute, it was clearly
"Art. 1121. Possession is naturally interrupted when through any established that Rafael Pacheco started occupying the same since
cause it should cease for more than one year."The old possession is 1939 and that his possession was public, open, peaceful,
not revived if a new possession should be exercised by the same continuous, uninterrupted, adverse and in the concept of owner
adverse claimant."cralaw virtua1aw library until and even beyond 1949. After ten years of such possession,
acquisitive prescriptive title was vested in Rafael Pacheco, pursuant
Briefly stated then, the argument of the private respondents runs as to Article 1134 of the Civil Code. Consequently, when he
follows: Rafael Pacheco repurchased the land in question from the mortgaged the land to the PNB, he did so not as a mere possessor
PNB on April 20, 1960. Since Ciriaco Pacheco derived his title from but as an owner by virtue of prescription under Article 1134 of
Rafael Pacheco, the latter’s possession from April 20, 1960 up to the Civil code. Article 1121 could no longer apply to him because
September 7, 1964, when the land was sold to the former, could be the ten-year prescriptive period had already been completed at
tacked to the possession taken over by Ciriaco Pacheco when he the time.
bought the land. However, his total possession did not ripen into
acquisitive title because the ten-year prescriptive period was not It follows that when Rafael Pacheco sold the land to Ciriano
completed. Reckoned from April 20, 1960, when Rafael Pacheco Pacheco, the latter acquired the rights of the former as owner of
repurchased the land from the Philippine National Bank, the period the property, and not as a mere possessor thereof, and so did the
would have been completed on April 20, 1970. The trouble is that on other petitioners who derived their title from Ciriaco Pacheco.
December 2, 1969, before prescription could set in, the complaint
for the recovery of the land was filed by the private respondents, The rule in execution sales is that an execution creditor acquires
thus interrupting the running of the period. 16 no higher or better right than what the execution debtor has in
the property levied upon. The purchaser of property on sale under
This argument, however, has not taken into account an earlier the execution and levy takes as assignee only, as the judicial seller
possession, to wit, that of Rafael Pacheco also, but beginning 1939, possesses no title other than that which would pass by an
when he bought the land in question from Emiliano Pacheco. 17 assignment by the owner. "An execution purchaser generally
acquires such estate or interest as was vested in the execution
debtor at the time of the seizure on execution, and only such
interest, taking merely a quit-claim of the execution debtor’s title,
without warranty on the part of either the execution officer or of the
parties, whether the property is realty or personality. This rule
prevails even if a larger interest in the property was intended to be
sold. Accordingly, if the judgment debtor had no interest in the
property, the execution purchaser acquires no interest therein."
20
Napocor vs. Gonong, 1989
Applying the above principles, we hold that the judgment sale in Facts:
favor of private respondent Hernandez did not and could not 1. The case has been instituted by Allied Control and Electric
cover the lands claimed by the petitioners as these lots no longer Corporation (ACEC) to recover sum of money against Batong
belonged to the judgment debtor when they were levied upon Buhay Gold Mines, Inc. (BBGMI), in which judgment was
and sold. That sale covered only the lands still under the ownership ordered against BBGMI to pay ACEC its indebtedness;
of the judgment debtor and did not affect the ownership of the 2. However, attempt for execution failed. Hence, ACEC filed
property titled in the name of the herein petitioners. None of them an Ex-Parte Motion for Examination of Debtor of Judgment
was a party to the civil case brought by the private respondent Debtor, alleging that NPC was a debtor of BBGMI;
against Emiliano Pacheco. 3. Judge Gonong, then summoned Mr. Viroya, Manager of
NPC General Accounts Division, and from his statement it was
Finally, as to the effect of Abitria’s failure to oppose the sale of this found out that: NAPOCOR and BBGMI entered into an
land in 1963 to enforce the judgment against Emiliano Pacheco, it agreement, in which BBGMI will financed the construction of
suffices to point out that under Rule 39, Section 17, of the Rules of the line connecting their mining site to the lines of NPC. In exchange
Court, the claimant who does not file a third party claim to the NPC is going to reimburse BBGMI the amount spent to said
property being levied upon is not prevented "from vindicating construction by crediting 25% of latter’s monthly bill. However,
his claims to the property by any other action." Hence, Abitria is BBGMI ceased its operation leaving a balance of P18,947,623.06
not precluded now from asserting in the present petition his claim of which is still due to defendant (but Vinoya testified that it not due
ownership over the disputed property. to BBGMI but balance made by BBGMI in the construction of
the power lines);
WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent court dated April 19, 4. Judge Gonong then direct the NPC to pay ACEC, out of its
1978, is REVERSED and that of the trial court dated July 25, 1975 remaining credit NPC held in favor of BBGMI and further directed
is REINSTATED. Costs against the private respondents. Sheriff Adriano to garnish and attach said credit
Basis: Sec 15, Rule 39 authorizing sheriff charged w/ execution to
SO ORDERED. levy on debts and credits in addition to real property, stocks, shares
and other personal property or any interest in either real or personal
property;
5. NPC filed a Manifestation alleging that:
a. Court has no jurisdiction to issue the assailed order, since they judgment of another, would be to deprive the garnishee of property
were never a party in the said civil case: upon summary proceeding and w/out due process of law.
b. NPC was not in possession of any property belonging to
BBGMI nor does BBGMI have any receivable from NPC;
6. No action was taken by Judge Gonong in response to such
Manifestation (Motion to Set Aside the Order);
7. Hence this present action of certiorari;
Issue: WON, Judge Gonong act with grave abuse of discretion Conflicts Of Law Case Digest: Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. V.
tantamount to lack of jurisdiction when it ordered the garnishment of CA (1995)
NPC’s property.
Held: YES!!!
1. It is within Judge Gonong prerogative to require the G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995
appearance, by subpoena, of officials of NPC to appear and be Lessons Applicable: Territoriality Principle (conflicts of law)
questioned regarding the latter’s claimed indebtedness to BBGMI,
HOWEVER, it was not within his power to order the payment of FACTS:
alleged debtor of the judgment debtor to pay the claimed debt • Northwest Airlines (Northwest) and C.F. Sharp & Company
without indubitable admission or conclusive proof that that the (C.F.), through its Japan branch, entered into an
debt existed and was demandable; International Passenger Sales Agency Agreement,
2. Sec. 15, Rule 39 is not applicable in this case (procedure that whereby the Northwest authorized the C.F. to sell its air
the sheriff would follow in enforcing money judgment against debtor transportation tickets
himself). Applicable provisions are Sec 42 and 45 of same rule • March 25, 1980: Unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket
which provides that “after summary examination of a person or sales, Northwest sued C.F. in Tokyo, Japan, for collection
entity alleged to be a debtor of the judgment debtor or holding of the unremitted proceeds of the ticket sales, with claim for
property belonging to the latter … execution may issue against damages
such person or entity only upon an incontrovertible showing that • April 11, 1980: writ of summons was issued by the 36th
the person or entity in fact holds property belonging to the Civil Department, Tokyo District Court of Japan
judgment debtor or indeed a debtor of said judgment debtor. • The attempt to serve the summons was unsuccessful
3. In Economic Insurance Co., Inc vs. Torres, the Court ruled that the because Mr. Dinozo was in Manila and would be back on
only power of the Court in proceedings supplemental to April 24, 1980
execution is to make an order authorizing the creditor to sue in • April 24, 1980: Mr. Dinozo returned to C.F. Office to serve
the proper court to recover indebtedness due to a judgment the summons but he refused to receive claiming that he no
debtor. The Court has no jurisdiction to try summarily the longer an employee
question whether the 3rd party served with notice of execution and • After the 2 attempts of service were unsuccessful, Supreme
levy is indebted to defendant when such indebtedness is denied. To
Court of Japan sent the summons together with the other
make an order in relation to property which the garnishee claimed to
legal documents to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
own on his own right, requiring its application in satisfaction of
Japan> Japanese Embassy in Manila>Ministry (now ISSUE: W/N the Japanese Court has jurisdiction over C.F.
Department) of Foreign Affairs of the
Philippines>Executive Judge of the Court of First HELD: YES. instant petition is partly GRANTED, and the
Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila who challenged decision is AFFIRMED insofar as it denied
ordered Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit>C.F. Main NORTHWEST's claims for attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and
Office exemplary damages
• August 28, 1980: C.F. received from Deputy Sheriff Consequently, the party attacking (C.F.) a foreign judgment has the
Rolando Balingit the writ of summons but failed to appear burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity
at the scheduled hearing. Accordingly, the presumption of validity and regularity of the
• January 29, 1981: Tokyo Court rendered judgment service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered by the
ordering the C.F. to pay 83,158,195 Yen and damages for Japanese court must stand.
delay at the rate of 6% per annum from August 28, 1980 up
to and until payment is completed Under Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a judgment in an
• March 24, 1981: C.F. received from Deputy Sheriff action in personam of a tribunal of a foreign country having
Balingit copy of the judgment. C.F. did not appeal so it jurisdiction to pronounce the same is presumptive evidence of a
became final and executory right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a
• May 20, 1983: Northwest filed a suit for enforcement of subsequent title. The judgment may, however, be assailed by
the judgment a RTC evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
• July 16, 1983: C.F. averred that the Japanese Court sought to collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Also, under Section
be enforced is null and void and unenforceable in this 3 of Rule 131, a court, whether of the Philippines or elsewhere,
jurisdiction having been rendered without due and proper enjoys the presumption that it was acting in the lawful exercise of
notice and/or with collusion or fraud and/or upon a clear jurisdiction and has regularly performed its official duty.
mistake of law and fact. The foreign judgment in the
Japanese Court sought in this action is null and void for Applying it, the Japanese law on the matter is presumed to be
want of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant similar with the Philippine law on service of summons on a private
considering that this is an action in personam. The foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. Section 14,
process of the Court in Japan sent to the Philippines which is Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the defendant is a
outside Japanese jurisdiction cannot confer jurisdiction over foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, service may be
the defendant in the case before the Japanese Court of the made:
case at bar (1) on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that
• CA sustained RTC: Court agrees that if the C.F. in a foreign purpose, or,
(2) if there is no such resident agent, on the government official
court is a resident in the court of that foreign court such court
designated by law to that effect; or
could acquire jurisdiction over the person of C.F. but it must
(3) on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
be served in the territorial jurisdiction of the foreign court
If the foreign corporation has designated an agent to receive
summons, the designation is exclusive, and service of summons is
without force and gives the court no jurisdiction unless made upon but also because of the presumption of regularity of performance of
him. official duty.
Where the corporation has no such agent, service shall be made on
the government official designated by law, to wit:
(a) the Insurance Commissioner in the case of a foreign insurance
company
(b) the Superintendent of Banks, in the case of a foreign banking ASIAVEST
corporation 361 SCRA 489 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law –
(c) the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the case of other Foreign Judgments – How Assailed
foreign corporations duly licensed to do business in the Philippines.
Whenever service of process is so made, the government office or In 1985, the High Court of Malaysia ordered the Philippine
official served shall transmit by mail a copy of the summons or other National Construction Corporation (PNCC) to pay $5.1 million
legal proccess to the corporation at its home or principal office. The to Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad. This was the result of a
sending of such copy is a necessary part of the service. recovery suit filed by Asiavest against PNCC in Malaysia for
PNCC’s failure to complete a construction project there despite due
The service on the proper government official under Section 14, payment from Asiavest. Despite demand, PNCC failed to comply
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 128 of the with the judgment in Malaysia hence Asiavest filed a complaint
Corporation Code for the enforcement of the Malaysian ruling against PNCC in the
Our laws and jurisprudence indicate a purpose to assimilate foreign Philippines. The case was filed with the Pasig RTC which
corporations, duly licensed to do business here, to the status of eventually denied the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed
domestic corporations the decision of the RTC.
We think it would be entirely out of line with this policy should we
make a discrimination against a foreign corporation, like the Asiavest appealed. In its defense, PNCC alleged that the foreign
petitioner, and subject its property to the harsh writ of seizure by judgment cannot be enforced here because of want of
attachment when it has complied not only with every requirement of jurisdiction, want of notice to PNCC, collusion and/or fraud, and
law made specially of foreign corporations, but in addition with there is a clear mistake of law or fact. Asiavest assailed the
every requirement of law made of domestic corporations arguments of PNCC on the ground that PNCC’s counsel participated
In as much as SHARP was admittedly doing business in Japan in all the proceedings in the Malaysian Court.
through its four duly registered branches at the time the collection
suit against it was filed, then in the light of the processual ISSUE: Whether or not the Malaysian Court judgment should be
presumption, SHARP may be deemed a resident of Japan, and, as enforced against PNCC in the Philippines.
such, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts therein and may
be deemed to have assented to the said courts' lawful methods of HELD: Yes. PNCC failed to prove and substantiate its bare
serving process. allegations of want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion and/or
Accordingly, the extraterritorial service of summons on it by the fraud, and mistake of fact. On the contrary, Asiavest was able to
Japanese Court was valid not only under the processual presumption present evidence as to the validity of the proceedings that took place
in Malaysia. Asiavest presented the certified and authenticated offered. Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan, presented as petitioner’s sole
copies of the judgment and the order issued by the Malaysian Court. witness, testified to the effect that he is in active practice of the law
It also presented correspondences between Asiavest’s lawyers and profession in Malaysia; 17 that he was connected with Skrine and
PNCC’s lawyers in and out of court which belied PNCC’s allegation Company as Legal Assistant up to 1981; that private respondent,
that the Malaysian court never acquired jurisdiction over it. PNCC’s then known as Construction and Development Corporation of the
allegation of fraud is not sufficient too, further, it never invoked Philippines, was sued by his client, Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M)
the same in the Malaysian Court. Berhad, in Kuala Lumpur; 19 that the writ of summons were served
on March 17, 1983 at the registered office of private respondent and
The Supreme Court notes, to assail a foreign judgment the party on March 21, 1983 on Cora S. Deala, a financial planning officer of
must present evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to private respondent for Southeast Asia operations; 20 that upon the
the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. filing of the case, Messrs. Allen and Gledhill, Advocates and
Otherwise, the judgment enjoys the presumption of validity so Solicitors, with address at 24th Floor, UMBC Building, Jalan
long as it was duly certified and authenticated. In this case, PNCC Sulaiman, Kuala Lumpur, entered their conditional appearance for
failed to present the required evidence. private respondent questioning the regularity of the service of the
writ of summons but subsequently withdrew the same when it
A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the realized that the writ was properly served; 21 that because private
country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the respondent failed to file a statement of defense within two (2) weeks,
basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the petitioner filed an application for summary judgment and submitted
giving of due notice in the foreign forum Under Section 50(b),16 affidavits and documentary evidence in support of its claim; 22 that
Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, which was the governing law the matter was then heard before the High Court of Kuala Lumpur in
at the time the instant case was decided by the trial court and a series of dates where private respondent was represented by
respondent appellate court, a judgment, against a person, of a counsel; 23 and that the end result of all these proceedings is the
tribunal of a foreign country having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment sought to be enforced.
same is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and
their successors in interest by a subsequent title. The judgment may, Garcia-Recio vs. Recio
however, be assailed by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of TITLE: Grace J. Garcia-Recio v Rederick A. Recio
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. CITATION: GR NO. 138322, Oct. 2, 2002 | 366 SCRA 437
In addition, under Section 3(n), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of
Court, a court, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, enjoys the FACTS:
presumption that it was acting in the lawful exercise of its
jurisdiction. Hence, once the authenticity of the foreign judgment is Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an
proved, the party attacking a foreign judgment, is tasked with the Australian Citizen, in Malabon, Rizal on March 1, 1987. They
burden of overcoming its presumptive validity. lived as husband and wife in Australia. However, an Australian
family court issued purportedly a decree of divorce, dissolving
In the instant case, petitioner sufficiently established the existence of the marriage of Rederick and Editha on May 18, 1989.
the money judgment of the High Court of Malaya by the evidence it
On January 12, 1994, Rederick married Grace J. Garcia where it (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the
was solemnized at Our lady of Perpetual Help Church, Cabanatuan document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy
City. Since October 22, 1995, the couple lived separately without must be:
prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. As a matter of fact, while (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or
they were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the
May 16, 1996, in accordance with their Statutory Declarations foreign country in which the record is kept and
secured in Australia. (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the Regional Trial
Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage Court of Cabanatuan City to receive or trial evidence that will
on the ground of bigamy on March 3, 1998, claiming that she conclusively prove respondent’s legal capacity to marry petitioner
learned only in November 1997, Rederick’s marriage with Editha and thus free him on the ground of bigamy.
Samson.
We also reject the claim of respondent that the divorce decree raises
a disputable presumption or presumptive evidence as to his civil
ISSUE: Whether the decree of divorce submitted by Rederick status based on Section 48, Rule 39[49] of the Rules of Court, for
Recio is admissible as evidence to prove his legal capacity to the simple reason that no proof has been presented on the legal
marry petitioner and absolved him of bigamy. effects of the divorce decree obtained under Australian laws.
But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, But we note that respondent Allied Bank was the plaintiff in both
but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive Civil Case No. 19325-88 and Civil Case No. 19634-89, while the
only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and Oropeza spouses were among the defendants in both cases. We also
determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is note that Allied Bank was the appellant in CA-G.R. CV No. 41986,
the concept of res judicata known as conclusiveness of where the Oropezas were included as appellees. The rule on identity
judgment(b). Stated differently, any right, fact, or matter in issue of parties does not require absolute, but only substantial identity of
directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of parties.
an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on
the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot In other words, the fact that OMC was not a party in Civil Case
again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not No. 19634-89 and CA-G.R. CV No. 41986, does not nullify the
the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is effect of the judgments issued in these cases on the other case,
the same. Civil Case No. 19325-88.
The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the With respect to identity of subject matter, this is included in
new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered identity of causes of action. When there is identity of the cause or
by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; causes of action, there is necessarily identity of subject matter. But
(3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and the converse is not true, for different causes of action may exist
(4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of regarding the same subject matter, in which case, the conclusiveness
parties, subject matter, and causes of action. The existence here of
of judgment shall be only with regard to the questions directly and respective causes of action in the two cases is not exactly the
actually put in issue and decided in the first case.[32] same. Perforce, we must rule that there is no identity between the
causes of action in Civil Case No. 19325-88 and Civil Case No.
A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of 19634-89.
the legal right of the other that causes the latter injury.[33] It is
determined not by the prayer of the complaint but by the facts There being substantial identity of parties but no identity of
alleged. The first case, Civil Case No. 19325-88, was for the causes of action, the applicable aspect of res judicata in the
collection of the P780,000.00 loan, secured by a promissory note, instant case is conclusiveness of judgment. There is
which respondent Allied Bank insists remained unpaid by the conclusiveness of judgment only as to the matters actually
petitioners. In other words, it is the alleged failure of petitioners to determined by the trial court in Civil Case No. 19634-89, as
liquidate their obligation to respondent bank, which caused affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 41986. These
Allied Banks cause of action in Civil Case No. 19325-88 to accrue. include the findings that: (1) the promissory note relied upon by
The situation is different in the other case, Civil Case No. 19634- respondent bank is spurious; and (2) that the loan obligation of
89, where respondent bank asserts its right as a mortgagee to the the Oropeza spouses has been settled and paid.
subject property by virtue of the real estate mortgage executed
by petitioner spouses in its favor. Allied Bank averred that the Res judicata is founded on the principle that parties ought not to be
Oropeza spouses executed a real estate mortgage over their permitted to litigate the same issue more than once. Hence, when a
properties to secure their loan. Respondent alleged that the Oropezas right or fact has been judicially tried and established by a court of
then sold said properties to Solid Gold Commercial Corporation, competent jurisdiction, or an opportunity for such trial has been
with intent to defraud respondent bank. Hence, respondent was given, the judgment of the court - - so long as it remains unreversed -
forced to file suit to annul the deed of sale over the mortgaged - is conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law
properties. It is apparent that alleged violations of respondents or estate.[36] It having been determined with finality in CA-G.R. CV
legal rights by petitioners differ, as the acts or omissions No. 41986 that the debt of the Oropezas has been settled,
complained of the two civil cases, basing on the recitation of respondents cause of action in Civil Case No. 19325-88 must be
their facts which are different. deemed extinguished.
The test to determine the identity of causes of action is to consider WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the
whether the same evidence would sustain both causes of action.[35] Court of Appeals, dated March 13, 1997 in CA-G.R. CV No. 47775
as well as its resolution of June 13, 1997 denying herein petitioners
The evidence to support Allied Banks cause of action in Civil motion for reconsideration are hereby SET ASIDE. The findings of
Case No. 19325-88 is included in and forms part of the evidence the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 9 in Civil Case No.
needed by respondent bank to support its cause of action in Civil 19634-89, as affirmed by the appellate court in CA-G.R. CV No.
Case No. 19634-89. The converse, however, not true. The 41986, shall be conclusive upon the parties in Civil Case No. 19325-
evidence needed in Civil Case No. 19634-89 does not necessarily 88. The order of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 15,
form part of the evidence needed by respondent in Civil Case No. dismissing respondent Allied Banking Corporations complaint in
19325-88. Accordingly, we find that the evidence to sustain the Civil Case No. 19325-88 is hereby REINSTATED with the
MODIFICATION that the case is not dismissed but is deemed
concluded on the ground of res judicata, i.e., as conclusiveness of MTD by Respondent:
judgment. Costs against respondent. (1) the Singapore High Court did not acquire jurisdiction over its
person;
SO ORDERED. (2) the foreign judgment sought to be enforced is void for having
ST. AVIATION SERVICES CO., PTE., LTD., petitioner, been rendered in violation of its right to due process.
vs. GRAND INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS, INC., RTC – denied MTD; MR Denied
Petition for Review on Certiorari CA(Pet for Cert) -granted the petition and setting aside orders; MR
denied
ST Aviation
• foreign corporation based in Singapore. SC:
Grand International Airways, Inc., respondent, • conditions for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign
• domestic corporation engaged in airline operations. judgment in our legal system are contained in Section 48,
Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Agreement • xxx a foreign judgment or order against a person is merely
• petitioner agreed to undertake maintenance and modification presumptive evidence
works on respondent's aircraft • matters of remedy and procedure - governed by the lex fori
• agreed that the "construction, validity and performance or the internal law of the forum (CAB -SG)
thereof" shall be governed by the laws of Singapore. • service of summons outside Singapore is in accordance with
• to submit any suit arising from their agreement to the non- Order 11, r. 4(2) of the Rules of Court 19966 of Singapore,
exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. ◦ c) by a method of service authorized by the law of that
country for service of any originating process issued by
December 12, 1997, petitioner filed with the High Court of the that country.
Republic of Singapore an action for the sum of S$452,560.18, • In PH - Jurisdiction over a party is acquired- SOS
• motion, the court issued a Writ of Summons to be served ◦ personally by handing a copy thereof to the defendant
extraterritorially or outside Singapore ◦ or by substituted service.
• sought the assistance of the sheriff of Pasay City to effect • In this case, the Writ of Summons issued by the Singapore
service of the summons upon respondent – failed High Court was served upon respondent at its office.
• Sheriff's Return - received by Secretary of the General
Singapore High Court Manager of respondent company.
• judgment by default against respondent. • respondent completely ignored the summons