Scribd
Upload
4K views

Mijares Vs Ranada - Case Digest

The petitioners filed a complaint in a US District Court against the Estate of former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos for human rights violations. The US court issued a final judgment ordering payment to the petitioners. When the petitioners filed to enforce the foreign judgment in Philippine court, the court required a large filing fee. The Supreme Court ruled that the filing fee was proper because the complaint was based on enforcing a money judgment from a foreign court, so it was capable of pecuniary estimation under the Rules of Court. It also noted that foreign judgments are not automatically recognized but the party contesting it bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity.

Uploaded by

OM Molins
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4K views

Mijares Vs Ranada - Case Digest

The petitioners filed a complaint in a US District Court against the Estate of former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos for human rights violations. The US court issued a final judgment ordering payment to the petitioners. When the petitioners filed to enforce the foreign judgment in Philippine court, the court required a large filing fee. The Supreme Court ruled that the filing fee was proper because the complaint was based on enforcing a money judgment from a foreign court, so it was capable of pecuniary estimation under the Rules of Court. It also noted that foreign judgments are not automatically recognized but the party contesting it bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity.

Uploaded by

OM Molins
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

139325             April 12, 2005

PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, et. al., Petitioner,


vs.
HON. SANTIAGO JAVIER RANADA, et. al., Respondents.

Facts:

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 filed a complaint
with the United States District Court (US District Court), District of Hawaii, against the Estate of former
Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos Estate). 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. On 9 September 1998, respondent Judge Santiago Javier Ranada of the
Makati RTC issued the subject Order dismissing 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. 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 (P472,000,000.00), 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. They also point out that to require the class
plaintiffs to pay said amount would negate and render inutile the liberal construction ordained by the
Rules of Court, as required by Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly the
inexpensive disposition of every action. Petitioners 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.

Issue: Whether or not the filing fee to be paid by the petitioners is proper.

Held:

Yes. 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. The provision does not make any distinction between a local
judgment and a foreign judgment, and where the law does not distinguish, we shall not distinguish. 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. Neither the complaint nor the award of damages adjudicated by
the US District Court involves any real property of the Marcos Estate. 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. 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. 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.

You might also like