Practice question
A Philippine proceeding seeks recognition of a judgment rendered in countryA. The objector says service in the original countryA litigation was invalid solely because it differed from Philippine service rules. No other defect is established, and the issue is the original court's procedure. Which analysis follows Asiavest?
- Examine the procedural law of the original forum, countryA, rather than assume Philippine service rules governed that foreign litigation
- Every foreign judgment is invalid automatically
- Every difference proves fraud
- Philippine procedure always governed the original foreign court
- A foreign rule need never be established under evidence requirements
Legal references
- Saudia v. Rebesencio, GR198587, January14 2015, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/60343
- Garcia v. Recio, GR138322, October2 2001, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/oct2001/gr_138322_2001.html
- Asiavest Limited v. CA, GR128803, September25 1998, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/sep1998/gr_128803_1998.html
- Hasegawa v. Kitamura, GR149177, November23 2007, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/nov2007/gr_149177_2007.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.