Ingenhal vs. Olsen Co.

,
FACTS: Ingenohl fled a suit against the Olsen, a corporation duly
organized, existing and doing business under the laws of the Philippines,
before the Supreme Court of Hongkong for infringement of trademark.
Since Ingenohl and his company are alien enemies as declared by the
Alien Property Custodian, its properties and other assets, including the
trademarks, were seized and sold to Olsen and Co.
The Supreme Court of Hong Kong rendered a fnal judgment in favor of
Ingenohl and refused to recognize the sale of said trademarks done by
the Alien Property Custodian to Olsen and Co.
Olsen refused to pay Ingenhol the amount awarded to the latter in the
Hong Kong judgment. Therefore, Ingenohl fled a complaint in the Court
of First Instance of Manila, seeking to recover the costs adjudged against
the corporation by the Hongkong court.
ISSUE:
1.Whether or not the judgment of the Hongkong Supreme Court, being a
foreign judgment, may be enforced in the Philippines. NO.
RATIO: It is well settled, upon the ground of comity and the law of nations,
that in the absence of treaty or statute, a judgment rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction of one foreign country in which the parties appeared and
contested the case on its merits, will be recognized and enforced in any other
foreign country. But here we have a statute which clearly defnes the specifc
conditions upon which a foreign judgment can be enforced in the Philippine
Islands, and we have a decision of the United States Supreme Court which
holds that "where there is no written law upon the subject, such as treaty or
statute, questions of international law must be determined by judicial decisions,
the works of jurists, and the acts and usages of civilized nations." The converse
of that proposition is also true that where you do have a treaty or statute, to
enforce a foreign judgment, it must come under and within the specifc
provisions of the treaty or statute.
Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: x x x but the
judgment 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.
Under such a statute, where a party seeks to enforce a foreign judgment,
the defendant has a legal right to make any of such defenses, and if any
of them is shown to properly exist, it will defeat the judgment.