27

G.R. No. 110263

July 20, 2001

ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION, respondents.
The petitioner Asiavest is a corporation organized under the laws of Malaysia while
private respondent Philippine National is a corporation duly incorporated and
existing under Philippine laws. Petitioner initiated a suit for collection against
respondent, then known as Construction and Development Corporation of the
Philippines. Petitioner sought to recover the indemnity of the performance bond it
had put up in favor of private respondent to guarantee the completion of the
certain Project and the nonpayment of the loan it extended to Asiavest-CDCP Sdn.
Bhd. for the completion of certain Project. High Court of Malaya rendered judgment
in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent. Petitioner initiated the
complaint before Regional Trial Court to enforce the judgment of the High Court of
Malaya. Private respondent sought the dismissal of the case via a Motion to
Dismiss, contending that the alleged judgment of the High Court of Malaya should
be denied recognition or enforcement since on in face, it is tainted with want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to private respondent, collusion and/or fraud, and there
is a clear mistake of law or fact. petitioner contended that the Court of Malaya
acquired jurisdiction over the Person of private respondent by its voluntary
submission the court's jurisdiction through its appointed counsel.
Whether or not the order rendered by the Malaysian Court is enforceable here in the
Philippines
A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it
comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis of a presumption of regularity of
proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum, a judgment, against a
person, of a tribunal of a foreign country having jurisdiction to pronounce the same
is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in
interest by a subsequent title. The judgment may, however, be assailed by evidence
of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake
of law or fact. A court, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, enjoys the
presumption that it was acting in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. Hence, once
the authenticity of the foreign judgment is proved, the party attacking a foreign
judgment is tasked with the burden of overcoming its presumptive validity.
Private respondent failed to sufficiently discharge the burden that fell upon it - to
prove by clear and convincing evidence the grounds which it relied upon to prevent
enforcement of the Malaysian High Court judgment. In this case, it is the procedural
law of Malaysia that determines the validity of the service of court process on
respondent. As to what the Malaysian procedural law is, remains a question of fact,
not of law. It may not be taken judicial notice of and must be pleaded and proved
like any other fact. It was then incumbent upon private respondent to present
evidence as to what that Malaysian procedural law is and to show that under it, the
assailed service of summons upon a financial officer of a corporation, as alleged by

27
it, is invalid. It did not. Accordingly, the presumption of validity and regularity of
service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered by the High Court of
Malaya must stand.44