1) Private respondent Ducat obtained loans from petitioners secured by shares of stock owned by Ducat. To facilitate repayment, 1488 Inc. assumed Ducat's obligations and sold land in Texas to Athona Holdings as payment, with a promissory note for the balance.
2) Athona failed to pay interest, so 1488 Inc. sued PHILSEC, AYALA, and Athona in the US. Petitioners then filed a case in the Philippines.
3) The trial court dismissed the case based on litis pendentia and forum non conveniens. The CA affirmed. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding petitioners were not given opportunity
1) Private respondent Ducat obtained loans from petitioners secured by shares of stock owned by Ducat. To facilitate repayment, 1488 Inc. assumed Ducat's obligations and sold land in Texas to Athona Holdings as payment, with a promissory note for the balance.
2) Athona failed to pay interest, so 1488 Inc. sued PHILSEC, AYALA, and Athona in the US. Petitioners then filed a case in the Philippines.
3) The trial court dismissed the case based on litis pendentia and forum non conveniens. The CA affirmed. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding petitioners were not given opportunity
1) Private respondent Ducat obtained loans from petitioners secured by shares of stock owned by Ducat. To facilitate repayment, 1488 Inc. assumed Ducat's obligations and sold land in Texas to Athona Holdings as payment, with a promissory note for the balance.
2) Athona failed to pay interest, so 1488 Inc. sued PHILSEC, AYALA, and Athona in the US. Petitioners then filed a case in the Philippines.
3) The trial court dismissed the case based on litis pendentia and forum non conveniens. The CA affirmed. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding petitioners were not given opportunity
1) Private respondent Ducat obtained loans from petitioners secured by shares of stock owned by Ducat. To facilitate repayment, 1488 Inc. assumed Ducat's obligations and sold land in Texas to Athona Holdings as payment, with a promissory note for the balance.
2) Athona failed to pay interest, so 1488 Inc. sued PHILSEC, AYALA, and Athona in the US. Petitioners then filed a case in the Philippines.
3) The trial court dismissed the case based on litis pendentia and forum non conveniens. The CA affirmed. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding petitioners were not given opportunity
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 4
PHILSEC INVESTMENT et al vs.
CA et al G.R. No. 103493 June 19, 1997 FACTS: Private respondent Ducat obtained separate loans from petitioners Ayala International Finance Limited (AYALA) and Philsec Investment Corp (PHILSEC), secured by shares of stock owned by Ducat. In order to facilitate the payment of the loans, private respondent 1488, Inc., through its president, private respondent Daic, assumed Ducats obligation under an Agreement, whereby 1488, Inc. executed a Warranty Deed with Vendors Lien by which it sold to petitioner Athona Holdings, N.V. (ATHONA) a parcel of land in Texas, U.S.A., while PHILSEC and AYALA extended a loan to ATHONA as initial payment of the purchase price. The balance was to be paid by means of a promissory note executed by ATHONA in favor of 1488, Inc. Subsequently, upon their receipt of the money from 1488, Inc., PHILSEC and AYALA released Ducat from his indebtedness and delivered to 1488, Inc. all the shares of stock in their possession belonging to Ducat. As ATHONA failed to pay the interest on the balance, the entire amount covered by the note became due and demandable. Accordingly, private respondent 1488, Inc. sued petitioners PHILSEC, AYALA, and ATHONA in the United States for payment of the balance and for damages for breach of contract and for fraud allegedly perpetrated by petitioners in misrepresenting the marketability of the shares of stock delivered to 1488, Inc. under the Agreement. While the Civil Case was pending in the United States, petitioners filed a complaint For Sum of Money with Damages and Writ of Preliminary Attachment against private respondents in the RTC Makati. The complaint reiterated the allegation of petitioners in their respective counterclaims in the Civil Action in the United States District Court of
Southern Texas that private respondents committed fraud by selling the property at a price 400 percent more than its true value. Ducat moved to dismiss the Civil Case in the RTC-Makati on the grounds of (1) litis pendentia, vis-a-vis the Civil Action in the U.S., (2) forum non conveniens, and (3) failure of petitioners PHILSEC and BPI-IFL to state a cause of action. The trial court granted Ducats MTD, stating that the evidentiary requirements of the controversy may be more suitably tried before the forum of the litis pendentia in the U.S., under the principle in private international law of forum non conveniens, even as it noted that Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case. Petitioners appealed to the CA, arguing that the trial court erred in applying the principle of litis pendentia and forum non conveniens. The CA affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case against Ducat, 1488, Inc., and Daic on the ground of litis pendentia. ISSUE: is the Civil Case in the RTC-Makati barred by the judgment of the U.S. court? HELD: CA reversed. Case remanded to RTC-Makati NO While this Court has given the effect of res judicata to foreign judgments in several cases, it was after the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to repel them on grounds allowed under the law. This is because in this jurisdiction, with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary. Rule 39, 50 provides:
Sec. 50. Effect of foreign judgments. The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a
foreign country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows: (a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to
the
thing;
(b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a
right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment 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. In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioners were given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the U.S. court as basis for declaring it res judicata or conclusive of the rights of private respondents. The proceedings in the trial court were summary. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court was even furnished copies of the pleadings in the U.S. court or apprised of the evidence presented thereat, to assure a proper determination of whether the issues then being litigated in the U.S. court were exactly the issues raised in this case such that the judgment that might be rendered would constitute res judicata. Second. Nor is the trial courts refusal to take cognizance of the case justifiable under the principle of forum non conveniens: First, a MTD is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, sec.1, which does not include forum non conveniens. The propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination, hence, it is more properly considered a matter of defense. Second, while it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require the courts desistance.
