REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT Manila

Third Division

HENRY HILTON AND WILLIAM LIBBEY, Petitioners, versus GR No. Petition for Review

GUSTAVE GUYOT, Respondent. x----------------------------------------------------x MEMORANDUM PETITIONERS, by counsel, to the Honorable Court most respectfully state: That PREFATORY STATEMENT When an action is brought in a court in this country, by a citizen of a foreign country against one of our own citizens, to recover a sum of money adjudged by a court of that country to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff, and the foreign judgment appears to have been rendered by a competent court, having jurisdiction of the cause and of the parties, and upon due allegations and proofs, and opportunity to defend against them, and its proceedings are according to the course of a civilized jurisprudence, and are stated in a clear and formal record, the judgment is prima facie evidence, at least of the truth of the matter adjudged; and it should be held conclusive upon the merits tried in the foreign court, unless some special ground is shown for impeaching the judgment, as by showing that it was affected by fraud or prejudice, or that, by the principles of international law, and by

the comity of our own country, it should not be given full credit and effect..( Conflict of Laws by Jorge R. Coquia and Elizabeth Aguiling Pangalangan) It is herein prayed that the Honorable Court scrutinize and render judgment in favor of the plaintiff to examine anew the force and effect of judgment in the courts of France which the defendant filed before our Philippine courts. STATEMENT OF FACTS Hilton and Libbey, citizents an residents of Manila, Philippines and trading as co-partners in Paris under the firm name of A.T.Steward @ Co. were sued in France for debts due to a French firm. Guyot, liquidator of said firm sued the former on the French judgment in the Regional Trial Court Manila seeking an amount of Fifty Million Pesos(P50M). RTC held the judgment conclusive and entered a decree in favor of the French firm without examining a new the merits of the case. Defendants question this decree on many grounds, foremost of which was that French courts gave no force and effect in our Judicial system.1 ________________________
1

The facts are originally based from the Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113)1895) ISSUE The sole issue to be resolve by the Honorable Supreme Court is whether or not the RTC erred in

enforcing the judgment of French court without an examination of merits and conduct trial anew, ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION Article 17, paragraph 3 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides for the Ineffectiveness of foreign laws and judgments, to wit : Par.3 Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or

judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. Emphasis supplied. ) In our jurisdiction, the remedies available to the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and

not cumulative. Notably, an election of one remedy operates as a waiver of the other. When the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to sound and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied. No law has any effect beyond the limits of the sovereignty from which its authority is derived. The extent to which one nation shall be allowed to operate within the dominion of another nation,depends upon the comity of nations. Comity is neither a matter of absolute obligation, nor of mere courtesy and good will. It is a recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation,having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or other persons who are under the protection of its laws. It is not the comity of the courts,but the comity of the nation,which is administered and ascertained in the same way,and guided by the same reasoning, by which all other principles of municipal law are ascertained and guided. It is provided in the laws of the Republic of France under article 181 of the Royal Ordinance of June 15,1629 provides: Judgments rendered, contracts or obligations recognized, in foreign kingdoms and sovereignties, for any cause whatever shall give rise to no lien or execution in our Kingdom. PRAYER WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that this Petition be GRANTED and that the judgments rendered by French court , and the merits of the controversies are based are to be examined anew. Other forms of relief and remedies that are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.