Practice question
A litigant submits an unauthenticated extract of a private parenting arrangement and a few foreign procedural orders, but fails to properly prove the actual judgment and relevant foreign law needed for the claimed effect. The litigant insists that §48's presumption supplies every missing proof requirement. Which is correct?
- The presumption does not dispense with proving the foreign judgment and applicable law under the governing evidence rules; Ang requires that foundation.
- Every foreign-looking page is self-proving.
- A private plan necessarily equals a proven court judgment.
- No foreign law ever needs proof in any case.
- A Philippine court must judicially notice every foreign court record.
Legal references
- https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2019-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf — Supreme Court official2019 Rules, Rule39§§47–48 and Rules57–61.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_139325_2005.html — Mijares v Ranada, GR139325, April12 2005, main decision.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_272461_2025.html — Ang v Sanchez-Fernandez, GR272461, April21 2025, main decision.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.