Mijaresv.

Ranada(2005)
Lessons Applicable: In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation

LawsApplicable:

FACTS:
May91991:acomplaintwasfiledbytenFilipinocitizensrepresentingaclassof10,000members
whoeachallegedhavingsufferedhumanrightsabusessuchasarbitrarydetention,tortureandrape
inthehandsofpoliceormilitaryforcesduringtheMarcosregimewiththeUnitedStatesDistrict
Court(USDistrictCourt),DistrictofHawaii,againsttheEstateofformerPhilippinePresident
FerdinandE.Marcos(MarcosEstate)
USDistrictCourtandAffirmedbyUSCA:awardedthem$1,964,005,859.90
PetitionersfiledComplaintwithMakatiRTCfortheenforcementoftheFinalJudgment
MarcosEstatefiledamotiontodismiss,raising,amongothers,thenonpaymentofthecorrectfiling
feespayingonlyP410
Petitionersclaimedthatanactionfortheenforcementofaforeignjudgmentisnotcapableof
pecuniaryestimation
RTC:estimatedtheproperamountoffilingfeeswasapproximatelyP472anddismissingthecase
withoutprejudice
PetitionforCertiorariunderRule65

ISSUE:W/Ntheenforcementofaforeignjudgmentisincapableofpecuniaryestimation

HELD:NO.(Butbelongsto"otheractionsnotinvolvingproperty")petitionisGRANTED.
Thereisanevidentdistinctionbetweenaforeignjudgmentinanactioninremandoneinpersonam.
Foranactioninrem,theforeignjudgmentisdeemedconclusiveuponthetitletothething,whilein
anactioninpersonam,theforeignjudgmentispresumptive,andnotconclusive,ofarightas
betweenthepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterestbyasubsequenttitle
However,inbothcases,theforeignjudgmentissusceptibletoimpeachmentinourlocalcourtson
thegroundsofwantofjurisdictionornoticetotheparty,collusion,fraud,orclearmistakeoflawor
fact.Thus,thepartyaggrievedbytheforeignjudgmentisentitledtodefendagainsttheenforcement
ofsuchdecisioninthelocalforum.Itisessentialthatthereshouldbeanopportunitytochallenge
theforeignjudgment,inorderforthecourtinthisjurisdictiontoproperlydetermineitsefficacyeven
ifsuchjudgmenthasconclusiveeffectasinthecaseofinremactions,ifonlyforthepurposeof
allowingthelosingpartyanopportunitytochallengetheforeignjudgment.Consequently,theparty
attackingaforeignjudgmenthastheburdenofovercomingthepresumptionofitsvalidity.Absent
perhapsastatutorygrantofjurisdictiontoaquasijudicialbody,theclaimforenforcementof
judgmentmustbebroughtbeforetheregularcourts.
Therearedistinctions,nuancedbutdiscernible,betweenthecauseofactionarisingfromthe
enforcementofaforeignjudgment,andthatarisingfromthefactsorallegationsthatoccasionedthe
foreignjudgment.Theymaypertaintothesamesetoffacts,butthereisanessentialdifferencein
therightdutycorrelativesthataresoughttobevindicated.Extensivelitigationisthusconductedon
thefacts,andfromtheretherighttoandamountofdamagesareassessed.Ontheotherhand,in
anactiontoenforceaforeignjudgment,thematterleftforproofistheforeignjudgmentitself,and
notthefactsfromwhichitprescinds.
AsstatedinSection48,Rule39,theactionableissuesaregenerallyrestrictedtoareviewof
jurisdictionoftheforeigncourt,theserviceofpersonalnotice,collusion,fraud,ormistakeoffactor
law.Thelimitationsonreviewisinconsonancewithastrongandpervasivepolicyinalllegal
systemstolimitrepetitivelitigationonclaimsandissues.Otherwiseknownasthepolicyof
preclusion,itseekstoprotectpartyexpectationsresultingfrompreviouslitigation,tosafeguard

againsttheharassmentofdefendants,toinsurethatthetaskofcourtsnotbeincreasedby
neverendinglitigationofthesamedisputes,andinalargersensetopromotewhatLordCokeinthe
Ferrer'sCaseof1599statedtobethegoalofalllaw:"restandquietness."Ifeveryjudgmentofa
foreigncourtwerereviewableonthemerits,theplaintiffwouldbeforcedbackonhis/heroriginal
causeofaction,renderingimmaterialthepreviouslyconcludedlitigation.
MarcosEstatecitesSingsongv.IsabelaSawmillandRaymundov.CourtofAppeals:
Indeterminingwhetheranactionisonethesubjectmatterofwhichisnotcapableofpecuniary
estimationthisCourthasadoptedthecriterionoffirstascertainingthenatureoftheprincipalaction
orremedysought.Ifitisprimarilyfortherecoveryofasumofmoney,theclaimisconsidered
capableofpecuniaryestimation,andwhetherjurisdictionisinthemunicipalcourtsorinthecourts
offirstinstancewoulddependontheamountoftheclaim.However,wherethebasicissueis
somethingotherthantherighttorecoverasumofmoney,wherethemoneyclaimispurely
incidentalto,oraconsequenceof,theprincipalreliefsought,thisCourthasconsideredsuch
actionsascaseswherethesubjectofthelitigationmaynotbeestimatedintermsofmoney,andare
cognizableexclusivelybycourtsoffirstinstance(nowRegionalTrialCourts).
AnexaminationofSection19(6),B.P.129revealsthattheinstantcomplaintforenforcementofa
foreignjudgment,evenifcapableofpecuniaryestimation,wouldfallunderthejurisdictionofthe
RegionalTrialCourts
ThecomplainttoenforcetheUSDistrictCourtjudgmentisonecapableofpecuniaryestimation.But
atthesametime,itisalsoanactionbasedonjudgmentagainstanestate,thusplacingitbeyond
theambitofSection7(a)ofRule141.ItiscoveredbySection7(b)(3),involvingasitdoes,"other
actionsnotinvolvingproperty."Thepetitionersthuspaidthecorrectamountoffilingfees,andit
wasagraveabuseofdiscretionforrespondentjudgetohaveappliedinsteadaclearlyinapplicable
ruleanddismissedthecomplaint.

Kurodav.Jalandoni

ConstitutionalLaw.PoliticalLaw.FundamentalPrinciplesandStatePolicies.ArticleII,Section2.
IncorporationClause.

42O.G.4282

FACTS:

ShigenoriKuroda, aformer LieutenantGeneral of the JapaneseImperial Army,ischargedbeforeamilitary

commission of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. He seeks to establish the illegality of EO 68 on the
grounds that it violates our Constitution and that the petitioners are not charged of crimes based onlaw
since the Philippines isnotasignatoryto theHagueConventionon Rules and RegulationscoveringLand
Warfare.

ISSUE:

1)WhetherornotEO68isunconstitutionaland
2)WhetherornotKurodamaybechargedforviolationofHagueConventionsrulesandregulations

HELD:
Executive Order 68,establishing a NationalWarCrimesOfficeis validandconstitutional.Thepresidenthas
acted in conformity with the generally accepted policies of international law which are also part of the
Constitution pursuant to the incorporation clause stipulated inSection 2,ArticleII of the Constitution. The
rules and regulation of Hague Convention form part of and are wholly based on generally accepted
principles of international law and were even accepted by the United States and Japan for they are
signatories to said convention. Suchrulesand regulations therefore form part of the lawofthePhilippines
regardlessof whetherornotitwasasignatorytothesame.Thus,Kurodamaybechargedforviolationofits
rulesandregulations.

AgustinvEdu(1979)88SCRA195
88SCRA195,213February2,1979
(ConstitutionalLawPolicePower,NonDelegationofLegislative
Power,PresumedValidity)

FACTS:
LeovilloAgustin,theownerofaBeetle,assailedthevalidityofaLetterofInstruction
(LOI229,asamended)
providingforearlywarningdevice(EWD)formotorvehiclesasanexerciseofpolicepowerisbeingviolative
oftheconstitutionalguaranteeofdueprocessand,itsimplementingrulesandregulations(
AONo.1andMC
No.32)
fortransgressionoftheprincipleofnondelegationoflegislativepower.TheassailedLOIwas
issuedpriortoacarefulstudybytheExecutiveDepartmentwhichwasrecognizedbyinternationalbodies
concernedwithtrafficsafety
(1968ViennaConventiononRoadSignsandSignalsandtheUN)
.
Respondentsdenytheallegationsandcontendsthatsaidallegationsarewithoutlegalandfactualbasis.

ISSUE:
WhetherornotaLOIanditsimplementingrulesandregulations,requiringEWDformotorvehiclesisa
violationoftheprovisionsanddelegationofpolicepower.

HELD:
No,thechallengedLOIisavalidpolicepowermeasureconsideringthatthepetitionerfailedtolaythe
necessaryfactualfoundationtorebutitspresumedvalidity.Likewise,theimplementingrulesandregulations
isfreefromtaintofunlawfuldelegationbecausethesewerepromulgatedbytheadministrativeofficebased
onthestandardofpublicsafetylaiddownbythelegislature.

CoKimChanv.ValdezTanKeh75Phil113Nov.16,1945
Factsofthecase:
Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated during the Japanese occupation, with the Court ofFirst
Instance of Manila. After the Liberation of the Manila and the American occupation,Judge Arsenio Dizon
refused to continue hearings onthecase,sayingthataproclamationissuedbyGeneralDouglasMacArthur
had invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the Philippines and,
without an enabling law, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial
proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines (the Philippine government
undertheJapanese).

Issues:
1.Whetheror not judicial proceedings anddecisions made duringtheJapaneseoccupationwerevalidand
remainedvalidevenaftertheAmericanoccupation

2.Whetheror not theOctober23,1944proclamation MacArthur issuedinwhich hedeclared thatall laws,

regulations and processes of any othergovernmentinthePhilippinesthanthatof the saidCommonwealth
arenull andvoid and without legaleffectinareas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation andcontrol
invalidatedalljudgmentsandjudicialactsandproceedingsofthecourts

3.Andwhether ornotif theywere notinvalidatedbyMacArthursproclamation,thosecourtscouldcontinue

hearingthecasespendingbeforethem.

Ratio:

Political and international lawrecognizesthat all acts andproceedingsof ade facto government aregood
and valid. The Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of thePhilippinesunder the Japanese
occupation may be considered de facto governments, supported by the military force and deriving their
authorityfromthelawsofwar.

Municipal laws and private laws, however, usually remain in force unless suspended or changed by the
conqueror. Civilobedienceis expectedevenduringwar,fortheexistenceofastateofinsurrection andwar
did not loosen the bonds of society, or do away withcivil governmentor the regular administrationofthe
laws. And if they werenot valid, thenit would not have been necessaryforMacArthurto come out with a
proclamationabrogatingthem.

The second question, the court said, hinges on the interpretation of the phrase processes of any other
government and whether or not he intended it to annul all other judgments and judicial proceedings of
courtsduringtheJapanesemilitaryoccupation.

IF, according to international law, nonpoliticaljudgmentsand judicial proceedingsofdefactogovernments

arevalid and remainvalidevenaftertheoccupiedterritory has beenliberated, thenit couldnothave been
MacArthursintentiontorefertojudicialprocesses,whichwouldbeinviolationofinternationallaw.

A wellknown rule of statutory construction is: A statute oughtnever to beconstruedtoviolate the lawof
nationsifanyotherpossibleconstructionremains.

Another isthat where greatinconvenience will resultfromaparticularconstruction,orgreat mischiefdone,

such construction istobeavoided,orthecourtoughttopresumethat suchconstructionwasnotintendedby
themakersofthelaw,unlessrequiredbyclearandunequivocalwords.

Annulling judgments of courts made during the Japanese occupation would clog the dockets and violate
internationallaw,thereforewhat MacArthur said should notbe construed to mean thatjudicialproceedings
areincludedinthephraseprocessesofanyothergovernments.

In the case of US vs Reiter, the court said that if such laws and institutions arecontinued in use by the
occupant, they become hisand derivetheir force from him.The laws andcourts ofthe Philippinesdid not
become,bybeingcontinuedasrequiredbythelawofnations,lawsandcourtsofJapan.

It is a legal maxim that, excepting of a political nature, law once established continuesuntilchanged by
some competent legislative power. IT IS NOT CHANGED MERELY BY CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY.
Until,ofcourse,thenewsovereignbylegislativeactcreatesachange.

Therefore, even assuming that Japan legally acquired sovereignty over the Philippines,andthelawsand
courts of the Philippines hadbecome courts of Japan, as the said courts and laws creating and conferring
jurisdiction upon them have continued in force until now, it follows that the same courts may continue
exercising the same jurisdiction over cases pending therein before the restoration of the Commonwealth
Government, untilabolishedor the laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them are repealedbythe
saidgovernment.

DECISION:
Writ of mandamus issued to the judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ordering him to take
cognizanceofandcontinuetofinaljudgmenttheproceedingsincivilcaseno.3012.

Summaryofratio:

1. International law says the acts of a de facto government are valid and civillawscontinueeven during
occupationunlessrepealed.
2.MacArthurannulledproceedingsofothergovernments,butthiscannotbeappliedonjudicialproceedings
becausesuchaconstructionwouldviolatethelawofnations.
3.Sincethelawsremainvalid,thecourtmustcontinuehearingthecasependingbeforeit.
***3 kinds of de facto government: one established through rebellion (govt gets possession and control
through force or the voice of the majority and maintains itself against the will of the rightful government)
through occupation(established andmaintained by military forceswho invadeand occupyaterritoryofthe
enemy in the courseofwardenotedasa governmentofparamountforce)through insurrection(established
as an independent government by the inhabitants ofa countrywhorise ininsurrectionagainsttheparent
state)

Inchongvs.Hernandez101PHIL155
Facts:
RA1180entitledAnActtoRegulatetheRetailBusiness
nationalizestheretailtradebusiness
ThemainprovisionsoftheActare:(1)prohibitionagainstpersons,notcitizensofthePhils.,and
againstassociations,partnershipsandcorporationsthecapitalofwhicharenotwhollyownedby
citizensofthePhils.,fromengagingdirectlyorindirectlyintheretailtrade(2)aprohibitionagainst
theestablishmentoropeningbyaliensactuallyengagedintheretailbusinessofadditionalstoresor
branchesofretailbusiness.
Petitioner,forandinhisownbehalfandonbehalfofotheralienresidentscorporationsand
partnershipsadverselyaffectedbytheprovisionsofRA1180,broughtthisactiontoobtainajudicial
declarationthatsaidActisunconstitutionalbecauseitdeniestoalienresidentstheequalprotection
ofthelawsanddeprivesoftheirlibertyandpropertywithoutdueprocessoflawandthatitviolates
internationaltreaties.inanswer,thesolicitorGeneralandtheFiscaloftheCityofManilacontend
thattheActwaspassedinthevalidexerciseofthepolicepoweroftheState,whichexerciseis
authorizedintheConstitutionintheinterestofnationaleconomicsurvivalandthatnotreatyor
internationalobligationsareinfringed.

Issue:
WONtheenactmentfallswithinthescopeofthepolicepowerofthestate.

Ruling:
Yes.

RD:
Thedisputedlawwasenactedtoremedyarealactualthreatanddangertonationaleconomyposedby
aliendominanceandcontroloftheretailbusinessandfreecitizensandcountryfromdominanceandcontrol
theenactmentclearlyfallswithinthescopeofthepolicepoweroftheState,thruwhichandbywhichit
protectsitsownpersonalityandinsuresitssecurityandfuture.