1. Treaties

Is your country party to any bilateral or multilateral treaties for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments? What is the country’s approach to entering into these treaties and what, if any, amendments or reservations has your country made to such treaties?

The Philippines is not a party to any bilateral or multilateral treaty for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Philippine case law, however, recognises that recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are generally accepted principles of international law because of widespread practice and the embodiment of procedures for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the rules of law, whether statutory or jurisprudential, adopted in foreign jurisdictions (BPI Securities Corporation v Guevara, 752 SCRA 342, 365 (2015), citing Mijares v Ranada, 455 SCRA 397, 421-422 (2005)), and considers as an established international legal principle ‘that final judgments of foreign courts are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious subject to certain conditions that vary in different countries’ (BPI Securities Corporation v Guevara, 752 SCRA 342 (2015), citing St Aviation Services Co Pte Ltd v Grand International Airways, Inc, 505 SCRA 30, 34 (2006)).

2. Intra-state variations

Is there uniformity in the law on the enforcement of foreign judgments among different jurisdictions within the country?

Yes. The Philippines does not have a federal system and accordingly there is uniformity in the law and procedure within the jurisdiction in respect of the enforcement of foreign judgments. The Philippine Constitution requires the uniform application of the Rules of Court for all courts of the same grade (Const., article VIII 5(5)), which, as will be discussed below, is the primary source of law for the enforcement of foreign judgments. The Rules of Court apply in all courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court (Rules of Court, Rule 1, section 2).

3. Sources of law

What are the sources of law regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments?

Foreign judgments may be enforced in the Philippines under procedural rules or jurisprudence (Mijares v Ranada, 455 SCRA 397 (2005)).

Rule 39, section 48 of the Rules of Court primarily governs the enforcement of foreign judgments. Under this rule, the foreign judgment merely creates a right of action, and its non-satisfaction is the cause of action by which a suit can be brought upon for its enforcement (BPI Securities Corporation v Guevara, 752 SCRA 342 (2015)). The rule creates a distinction between a foreign judgment in an action in rem and one in personam. For the former, ‘the foreign judgment is deemed conclusive upon the title to the thing’, while for the latter, the foreign judgment is merely ‘presumptive, and not conclusive, of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title’ (BPI Securities Corporation v Guevara, 752 SCRA at 367 (2015), citing Mijares v Ranada, 455 SCRA 397, 409 (2005)). In either case, the foreign 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’ (Rules of Court, Rule 39, section 48, last paragraph).

Decisions of the Supreme Court applying or interpreting the rule on enforcement of foreign judgments form part of the legal system of the Philippines (Civil Code, article 8).