In today’s increasingly globalized world, legal disputes often cross national borders. It is not uncommon for individuals or businesses to secure favorable court decisions abroad and later seek to have those judgments recognized and enforced in the Philippines. Whether involving commercial disputes, family law matters, or monetary claims, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments ensures that rights adjudicated abroad can be respected locally.
Int’l Legal Basis for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Philippines
The Philippines does not have any reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of foreign judgments with any other jurisdictions, especially for civil and commercial matters. However, we are a party to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, or the New York Convention, which provides the principles for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and arbitration agreements.
The State also follows the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration concerning the enforcement of arbitral awards. According to the United Nations (UN), the Model Law is designed to assist States in reforming and modernizing their laws on arbitral procedure to take into account the particular features and needs of international commercial arbitration. It covers all stages of the arbitral process from the arbitration agreement, the composition and jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, and the extent of court intervention through to the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.
To best put it, in Mijares v. Ranada, it states that the Philippine legal system has long ago accepted into its jurisprudence and procedural rules the viability of an action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment, as well as the requisites for such valid enforcement, as derived from internationally accepted doctrines. There may be distinctions as to the rules adopted by each particular state, but they all prescind from the premise that there is a rule of law obliging states, in this case, the Philippines, to allow, however generally, the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.
Similarly, the Court held in Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. v. Yi that while in the absence of a special compact, no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country, the rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations have established a usage among civilized states that final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different countries.
Local Laws and Enforcement Procedures of Foreign Judgments
In the Philippines, the enforcement of foreign judgments is generally governed by Rule 39, Section 48 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (or the Special ADR Rules, A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC), and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (ADR) of 2004 and its Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR).
The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order, is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order, is conclusive upon the title to the thing, and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.
The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order, is as follows:
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
Rule 13 of the Special ADR Rules outlines the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments process:
13. 1. Any party to a foreign arbitration may petition the court to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award.
13.2. At any time after receipt of a foreign arbitral award, any party to arbitration may petition the proper Regional Trial Court to recognize and enforce such award.
13.3 The petition to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award shall be filed, at the option of the petitioner, with the Regional Trial Court (a) where the assets to be attached or levied upon is located, (b) where the act to be enjoined is being performed, (c) in the principal place of business in the Philippines of any of the parties, (d) if any of the parties is an individual, where any of those individuals resides, or (e) in the National Capital Judicial Region.
The foreign court judgment shall fulfill the following requirements for it to be recognized and enforced:
- The foreign judgment is final and executory.
- The foreign court must have had proper jurisdiction over the case and the parties.
- There is no collusion or fraud.
- There must be no clear mistake of law or fact.
- The foreign judgment is not barred by the statute of limitations.
- The foreign judgment must not be contrary to morals and public policy (Mijares v. Ranada)
On that note, enforcement of foreign judgments can be challenged based on the following grounds:
- Lack of jurisdiction of the foreign court.
- Absence of due process for the defendant.
- Judgment obtained through collusion or fraud.
- Contrary to Philippine public policy (e.g., decisions that violate local laws, morals, or established customs).
- Clear mistake of law or fact (Rule 39, Sec. 48 of Rules of Court)
Shall there be no inconsistencies or adequate proof based on the above, Philippine courts should, by default, recognize the foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations (Fujiki vs. Marinay).
The approximate time it takes for a foreign judgment to be recognized, enforced, and/or registered is:
- One (1) year if unopposed, and
- Two to three (2-3) years if opposed.
–
If you need assistance in navigating foreign judgment enforcement in the Philippines, our Firm can guide you through the legal process and help secure enforceability within the Philippine jurisdiction.
Disclaimer: The content of this blog is intended for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and regulations may vary by jurisdiction, and the applicability of the information herein may differ depending on specific facts and circumstances. Accessing or reading this content does not create an attorney–client relationship. For legal concerns or tailored guidance, please consult a qualified lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.
Whether you are based in the Philippines or overseas, STLAF offers legal services to both local and international clients. Our team is equipped to assist with cross-border matters, provide jurisdiction-specific guidance, and help you navigate complex legal challenges with confidence.
To read more STLAF legal tidbits, visit www.stlaf.global/bits-of-law.
For comments, suggestions, and inquiries, email legal@stlaf.global.
Author/s: Patricia Minimo
About the author: Patricia is STLAF's Legal Writer-Researcher. She is a Communication graduate from the University of the Philippines – Baguio with a major in Journalism and a minor in Speech Communication.