G.R. No.

L-554 April 9, 1948

HAW PIA, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
THE CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellant instituted this action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the defendant
China Banking Corporation, to compel the latter to execute a deed of cancellation of the mortgage on the property
described in the complaint and to deliver to the said plaintiff the Transfer Certificate of Title with the mortgage
annotated already cancelled.
Plaintiff-appellant’s indebtedness to the defendant-appellee China Banking Corporation in the sum of P5,103.35
by way of overdraft in current account payable on demand together with its interests, has been completely paid,
on different occasions to the defendant Bank China Banking Corporation through the defendant Bank of Taiwan,
Ltd., that was appointed by the Japanese Military authorities as liquidator of the China Banking Corporation.

Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of China Banking Corp. on the basis that therewas no evidence to show
that Bank of Taiwan was authorized by China BankingCorp. to accept Haw Pia's payment and that Bank of
Taiwan, as an agency of the Japanese invading army, was not authorized under the international law toliquidate
the business of China Banking Corp. As such, Haw Pia's payment toBank of Taiwan has not extinguished his
indebtedness to China Banking Corp.

ISSUE:

Whether the Japanese Military Administration had authority to order theliquidation of the business of China
Banking Corp. and to appoint Bank of Taiwan as liquidator authorized as such to accept payment

HELD:

YES. The Japanese military authorities had power, under the international law, to order the liquidation of
the China Banking Corporation and to appoint and authorize the Bank of Taiwan as liquidator to accept the
payment in question, because such liquidation is not confiscation of the properties of the bank appellee, but
a mere sequestration of its assets which required the liquidation or winding up of the business of said bank.
The sequestration or liquidation of enemy banks in occupied territories is authorized expressly by the United
States Army and Navy Manual of Military Government and Civil Affairs F.M. 2710 OPNAV 50-E-3.

[G.R. No. 139325. April 12, 2005]

PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, HILDA B. NARCISO, SR.

MARIANI DIMARANAN, SFIC, and JOEL C. LAMANGAN in their behalf and
on behalf of the Class Plaintiffs in Class Action No. MDL 840, United States
District Court of Hawaii, petitioners,
vs.

HON. SANTIAGO JAVIER RANADA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch

137, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, and the ESTATE OF FERDINAND E.
MARCOS, through its court appointed legal representatives in Class Action
MDL 840, United States District Court of Hawaii, namely: Imelda R. Marcos
and Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., respondents.
On May 9, 1991, Ten Filipino citizens who each alleged having suffered human rights abuses such as arbitrary
detention, torture and rape in the hands of police or military forces during the Marcos regime, filed with the US
District Court, Hawaii, against the Estate Ferdinand E. Marcos.

US District Court and Affirmed by US CA: awarded them $1,964,005,859.90

The present petitioners filed Complaint with the Makati RTC for the enforcement of the Final Judgment. paying
Php 410 as docket and filing fees based on Rule 141, Section 7(b) where the value of the subject matter is
incapable of pecuniary estimation.

Marcos Estate filed a motion to dismiss, raising, among others, the non-payment of the correct filing fees paying
only Php 410

Petitioners submit that their action is incapable of pecuniary estimation as the subject matter of the suit is the
enforcement of a foreign judgment, and not an action for the collection of a sum of money or recovery of
damages. They also point out that to require the class plaintiffs to pay P472,000,000 in filing fees would negate
and render inutile the liberal construction ordained by the Rules of Court, particularly the inexpensive
disposition of every action.

Issue:

Whether or not the amount paid by the Petitioners is the proper filing fee?

Ruling:

Yes, but on a different basis—amount merely corresponds to the same amount required for “other actions not
involving property”. The Regional Trial Court of Makati erred in concluding that the filing fee should be computed
on the basis of the total sum claimed or the stated value of the property in litigation. The Petitioner’s Complaint
was lodged against the Estate of Marcos but it is clearly based on a judgment, the Final Judgment of the US
District Court. However, the Petitioners erred in stating that the Final Judgment is incapable of pecuniary
estimation because it is so capable. On this point, Petitioners state that this might lead to an instance wherein a
first level court (MTC, MeTC, etc.) would have jurisdiction to enforce a foreign judgment. Under Batasang
Pambansa 129, such courts are not vested with such jurisdiction. Section 33 of Batasang Pambansa 129 refers
to instances wherein the cause of action or subject matter pertains to an assertion of rights over property or a
sum of money. But here, the subject matter is the foreign judgment itself. Section 16 of Batasang Pambansa 129
reveals that the complaint for enforcement of judgment even if capable of pecuniary estimation would fall under
the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. Thus, the Complaint to enforce the US District Court judgment is
one capable of pecuniary estimations but at the same time, it is also an action based on judgment against an
estate, thus placing it beyond the ambit of Section 7(a) of Rule 141. What governs the proper computation of the
filing fees over Complaints for the enforcement of foreign judgments is Section7(b)(3), involving “other actions
not involving property.”