G.R. No. 128803 – 295 SCRA 469 – 357 Phil. 536 – Civil Law – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Service of Summons to a Non Resident – Processual Presumption
In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio Heras to pay US$1.8 million or its equivalent, with interest, to Asiavest Ltd. Apparently, Heras guaranteed a certain loan in Hong Kong and the debtor in said loan defaulted hence, the creditor, Asiavest, ran after Heras. But before said judgment was issued and even during trial, Heras already left for good Hong Kong and he returned to the Philippines. So when in 1987, when Asiavest filed a complaint in court seeking to enforce the foreign judgment against Heras, the latter claim that he never received any summons, not in Hong Kong and not in the Philippines. He also claimed that he never received a copy of the foreign judgment. Asiavest however contends that Heras was actually given service of summons when a messenger from the Sycip Salazar Law Firm served said summons by leaving a copy to one Dionisio Lopez who was Heras’ son-in-law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment can be enforced against Heras in the Philippines.
HELD: No. Although the foreign judgment was duly authenticated (Asiavest was able to adduce evidence in support thereto) and Heras was never able to overcome the validity of it, it cannot be enforced against Heras here in the Philippines because Heras was not properly served summons. Hence, as far as Philippine law is concerned, the Hong Kong court has never acquired jurisdiction over Heras. This means then that Philippine courts cannot act to enforce the said foreign judgment.
The action against Heras is an action in personam and as far as Hong Kong is concerned, Heras is a non resident. He is a non resident because prior to the judgment, he already abandoned Hong Kong. The Hong Kong law on service of summons in in personam cases against non residents was never presented in court hence processual presumption is applied where it is now presumed that Hong Kong law in as far as this case is concerned is the same as Philippine laws. And under our laws, in an action in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This method of service is possible if such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him. Without a personal service of summons, the Hong Kong court never acquired jurisdiction. Needless to say, the summons tendered to Lopez was an invalid service because the same does not satisfy the requirement of personal service.
