GR L 45193; (April, 1939) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45193; April 5, 1939
EMILIE ELMIRA RENEE BOUDARD, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. STEWART EDDIE TAIT, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiffs, widow and children of the deceased Marie Theodore Jerome Boudard, obtained a money judgment from the civil division of the Court of First Instance of Hanoi, French Indo-China, against defendant Stewart Eddie Tait for 40,000 piastras (equivalent to P56,905.77). The judgment was based on a claim that the deceased, allegedly an employee of Tait, was killed in Hanoi by Tait’s other employees. The defendant was declared in default in the Hanoi proceedings. The plaintiffs filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to enforce this foreign judgment. The trial court dismissed the case, finding that the Court of Hanoi lacked jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The evidence showed that the defendant was not a resident of, nor had a known domicile in, Hanoi; he was never in Hanoi; his alleged agent or employees were never there; and the deceased was never his employee. The defendant first learned of the suit when served with summons in the Manila case.
ISSUE
Whether the foreign judgment rendered by the Court of Hanoi is enforceable in the Philippines, considering the alleged lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
RULING
No, the foreign judgment is not enforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. A foreign judgment against a person for money recovery is only presumptive evidence of a right under Section 311 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) and may be repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction or want of notice. The fundamental rule is that jurisdiction in personam over a nonresident, to sustain a money judgment, requires personal service of summons within the state or country rendering the judgment. The process of a court has no extraterritorial effect. Here, the defendant was a nonresident of French Indo-China with no known domicile there, and he was not personally served with summons within that country. The attempted service in Manila upon a representative of a different entity (Churchill & Tait Inc.) was invalid to confer jurisdiction on the Hanoi court. Therefore, the Hanoi court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant, and its judgment cannot be given conclusive effect in the Philippines.
AI Generated by Armztrong.