1. Asiavest Limited (AL) vs.
CA, Heras embassy or legation, consul, general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent, or any officer in foreign service of Phil. stationed in
1. AL filed complaint in RTC Quezon City against Heras praying that Heras be ordered to pay it amounts awarded by Hong Kong
Court Judgment (HKJ) dated December 28, 1984;
2. Heras filed Motion to Dismiss w/c was denied, hence he filed Answer.
3. At Pre-Trial Conference: Heras admitted existence of HKJ and Heras’ residence is New Manila, Quezon City.
4. AL resented documentary evidence to show rendition, existence, and authentication of such HKJ by the proper officials
concerned
5. Heras presented 2 witnesses: a) dela Vega- his secretary stating that no writ of summons of AL was ever served in Heras’
office/ residence; b.) Lousich- presented as an expert on Hong Kong laws
6. RTC infav. of AL; since HKJ been duly proved, it is a presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties; hence, (Heras)
had burden to prove want of jurisdiction over his person who failed since his own witness Lousich admitted that HERAS was
served with summons in his Quezon City residence; no merit on Heras’ contention that HKJ violated Consti. and procedural
laws of Philippines because it contained no statements of facts and law on which it was based; since issue related to
procedural matters, the law of the forum (Hong Kong laws) should govern.
7. CA infav. of Heras dismissing AL’s complaint w/o prejudice; agreed w/ RTC that matters of remedy and procedure (service of
summons) are governed by lex fori, (Hongkong); gave weight to Lousich's testimony that under Hong Kong law, substituted
service of summons upon HERAS on Nov. 1984 thru latter’s son-in law effected the Philippines by the clerk of Sycip firm would
be valid provided that it was done in accordance w/ Philippine laws; "notice sent outside the state to a non-resident is
unavailing to give jurisdiction in an action against him personally for money recovery, hence, summons should be personally
served on HERAS in Hong Kong; necessary that evidence supporting validity of foreign judgment be submitted and that our
courts are not bound to give effect to foreign judgments w/c contravene laws and principle of sound morality and public policy.
ISSUE: W/n CA is correct that HKJ cannot be given force and effect here in Phil. for having been rendered w/o jurisdiction = YES.
SC: 1. Rules of Court- foreign judgment against person rendered by court having jurisdiction to pronounce judgment is
presumptive evidence of right as between parties and their successors in interest by subsequent title. But judgment may be
repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
-once authenticity of foreign judgment is proved, the burden to repel it is on party challenging it (Heras)
2. At PTC, HERAS admitted existence of HKJ and AL presented evidence… see fact #4 ; hence judgment is presumed to be valid
and binding in country from which it comes, until the contrary is shown; presumption of validity accorded foreign judgment
would be rendered meaningless were the party seeking to enforce it be required to first establish its validity., Hence AL is
correct that CA erred when it ruled that it’s necessary for AL to present evidence supporting the validity of judgment
2. main argument raised against HKJ is that HK SC did not acquire jurisdiction over person of HERAS w/c involves issue of
whether summons was properly and validly served on HERAS.
- settled that matters of remedy and procedure are governed by the lex fori or law of forum,-HK law; -HERAS insisted as per
Lousich, there was no valid service of summons on him. - Lousich’ Counter-Affid- record of HK case failed to show that writ of
summons was served upon HERAS in HK
3. AL did not object on qualif. of Lousich as expert on HK law.
-Secs. 24 and 25, Rule 132-record of public documents of sovereign authority, tribunal, official body, or public officer may be
proved by (a) official publication thereof or (b) copy attested by officer having legal custody thereof, which must be
accompanied, if record is not kept in Phil/ w/ Cert. that such officer has custody. Cert. may be issued by secretary of the
foreign country in w/c record is kept & authenticated by seal of his office. Attestation must state, in substance, that copy is a
correct copy of original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer.
- But testimony of an expert witness may be allowed to prove a foreign law.
4. But nothing in Lousich’ testimony that touched on specific law of HK in respect of service of summons either in actions in
rem or in personam, and where the defendant is either a resident or nonresident of HK.
-In absence of proof of HK law on this particular issue, presumption of identity or similarity or aka processual presumption shall
come into play. It will thus be presumed that HK law on matter is similar to Phil. law
5. Action filed in HK was in personam, since it was based on his personal guarantee of obligation of principal debtor.
-An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability; jurisd. over person of the defendant is
necessary for court to validly try and decide the case: by personal service; substituted service
- if non-resident def.- personal service of summons w.in state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person w/c
is possible if such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction
over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case w/ Exception: service through def’s wife, who was a
resident of Phil. and who was his rep. and Atty in fact.
6.Residence of HERAS for action for the enforcement of was never in issue as Heras never challenged the service of summons
on him thru a security guard in his Quezon City residence and thru a lawyer in his office in that city; In his MTD, he did not
question jurisd. of the Phil. court over his person on invalid service of summons.
-What was in issue was his residence as far as Hong Kong suit was concerned.
-SC conclude that the stipulated fact that HERAS "is a resident of QC Phil, refers to his residence at time jurisdiction over his
person was being sought by HK court; Hence AL cannot now claim that HERAS was a resident of HK at the time.
7. since HERAS was not a resident of HK and action against him was in personam, summons should have been personally
served on him in HK.
-extraterritorial service in Philippines was therefore invalid and did not confer on HK court jurisdiction over his person.
-It follows that HKJ cannot be given force and effect here in the Philippines for having been rendered w/o jurisdiction.
8. Even assuming that HERAS was formerly a resident of HK, he was no longer so in November 1984 when extraterritorial
service of summons was attempted to be made on him.
- As declared by his secretary, HERAS left HK in October 1984 "for good." His absence in HK must be the reason why summons
was not served on him therein; thus, AL was constrained to apply for leave to effect service in Phil. and commissioned the Sycip
firm to serve the summons here in Philippines.
9. HERAS, was an absentee, who should have been served w/ summons in the same manner as a non-resident not found in HK.
-extraterritorial service in Sec. 17 will not apply because the suit against him was in personam.
-Neither extraterritorial service on resident defendant temporarily absent from country, because even if HERAS be considered
as a resident of HK, the undisputed fact remains that he left Hong Kong not only "temporarily" but "for good."
2. Wildvalley Shipping Co (W) vs. CA and Phil. President Lines (PPL)
1. Philippine Roxas (PR), vessel owned by PPL, arrived in Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela, to load iron ore.
Upon completion of loading and when vessel was ready to leave port, Vasquez, an official pilot of
Venezuela, designated to navigate the PR through the Orinoco River.
-days after PR experienced some vibrations when it entered San Roque Channel and pilot assured the
watch that it was a result of the shallowness of the channel but PR experienced again vibrations and
it ran aground in the Orinoco River, thus obstructing the ingress and egress of vessels.
- because of blockage, Malandrinon, vessel owned by W was unable to sail out of on that day.
2. W, filed suit in RTC Manila against PPL for damages in form of unearned profits, and interest
3. RTC in fav. of W w/c decision was reversed by CA
ISSUE: W/n Venezuelan law is applicable to the case at bar= NO.
SC: 1. foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to
take judicial notice of them as they must be alleged and proved.
2. Proving Written laws falls under Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court: a.) official publication
thereof; b.) or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in Phil, with a Cert. that such officer has the
custody . If office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, Cert. may be made by secretary
of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the
foreign service of Phil. stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated
by the seal of his office."
"unwritten laws"- oral testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, as are printed and published
books of reports of decisions of courts of the country concerned if proved to be commonly admitted
in such courts.
3. SC do not dispute the competency of Capt. Oscar Monzon, the Assistant Harbor Master and Chief
of Pilots at Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela, to testify on the existence of the Reglamento General de la Ley
de Pilotaje (pilotage law of Venezuela) and the Reglamento Para la Zona de Pilotaje No. 1 del Orinoco
(rules governing the navigation of the Orinoco River).
-But SC take note that these written laws were not proven in the manner provided by Section 24 of
Rule 132
- Pilotage Law was published in Gaceta Official of Venezuela; photocopy of Gaceta was presented in
evidence as an official publication
- Rules governing navigation- published in a book; only a photocopy is presented
4. For a copy of foreign public document to be admissible, requisites: (a) It must be attested by the
officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and (b) accompanied by Cert. by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, ect. (not a mere technicality but is intended to justify the giving
of full faith and credit to the genuineness of a document in a foreign country.
5. not enough that Gaceta Official, or a book published by the Ministerio de Comunicaciones was
presented as evidence w/ Captain Monzon attesting it. It is also required by Section 24 of Rule 132
that a cert. that Captain Monzon, who attested the documents, is the officer who had legal custody of
those records made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, etc. and authenticated by the seal of
his office accompanying the copy of the public document.
-No such certificate could be found in the records of the case.
6. W/ respect to proof of written laws, parol proof is objectionable, for the written law itself is the
best evidence.
- when a foreign statute is involved, the best evidence rule requires that it be proved by a duly
authenticated copy of the statute.
7. Venezuelan law was not pleaded before the lower court.
- A foreign law is considered to be pleaded if there is an allegation in pleading about the existence of
foreign law, its import and legal consequence on the event or transaction in issue
-review of Complaint revealed that it was never alleged or invoked despite the fact that the
grounding of the M/V Philippine Roxas occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Venezuela.
- foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. In the absence of pleading and proof,
the laws of a foreign country, or state, will be presumed to be the same as our own local or domestic
law and this is known as processual presumption.
OTHER RULING:
On issue of negligence on the part of PPL warranting the award of damages, SC found that the
required ordinary diligence was properly exercised by PPL when the vessel sailed only after the main
machineries were checked and found to be in good running condition; when the master left a
competent officer on watch on the bridge with a pilot who is experienced in navigating Orinoco River;
and, when the master ordered inspections when vibrations occurred.