BORTHWICK vs.

CASTRO BARTOLOME FACTS Petitioner William Borthwick, an American citizen living in the Philippines, owned real property interests in Hawaii. In his business dealings with private respondent, Joseph Scallon, Borthwick issued the promissory notes now sued upon, but failed to pay the sums owing upon maturity and despite demands. The promissory notes provided that upon default, action may be brought for collection in Los Angeles, California, or at Scallon's option, in Manila or Honolulu. Borthwick was served with summons when he was in California, pursuant to Hawaiian law allowing service of process on a person outside the territorial confines of the State. Because Borthwick ignored the summons, a judgment by default was entered against him. However, Scallon's attempt to have the judgment executed in Hawaii and California failed because Borthwick had no assets in those states. Scallon then came to the Philippines and brought suit against Borthwick seeking enforcement of the default judgment of the Hawaii court. Again, after due proceedings, judgment by default was rendered against him, ordering Borthwick to pay Scallon the amount prayed for. The court issued an amendatory order and upon receipt by Borthwick, he moved for a new trial, alleging that the promissory notes did not arise from business dealings in Hawaii, nor did he own real estate therein. He contended that the judgment of the court of Hawaii is unenforceable in the Philippines because it was invalid for want of jurisdiction over the cause of action and over his person. The motion was denied, hence this petition.] RULING "It is true that a foreign judgment against a person is merely "presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties," and rejection thereof may be justified, among others, by "evidence of a want of jurisdiction" of the issuing authority, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. In the case at bar, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Hawaii hinged entirely on the existence of either of two facts in accordance with its State laws, i.e., either Borthwick owned real property in Hawaii, or the promissory notes' sued upon resulted from his business transactions therein. Scallon's complaint clearly alleged both facts. Borthwick was accorded opportunity to answer the complaint and impugn those facts, but he failed to appear and was in consequence declared in default. There thus exists no evidence in the record of the Hawaii case upon which to lay a conclusion of lack of jurisdiction, as Borthwick now urges. The opportunity to negate the foreign court's competence by proving the non-existence of said jurisdictional facts established in the original action, was again afforded to Borthwick in the Court of First Instance of MF kati, where enforcement of the Hawaii judgment was sought. This time it was the summons of the domestic court which Borthwick chose to ignore, but with the same result: he was declared in default. And in the default judgment subsequently promulgated, the Court a quo decreed enforcement of die judgment affirming among others the jurisdictional facts, that Borthwick owned real property in Hawaii and transacted business therein. In the light of these antecedents, it is plain that what Borthwick seeks in essence is one more opportunity, a third, to challenge the jurisdiction of the Hawaii Court and the merits of the cause of action which that Court had adjudged to have been established against him. This he may obtain only if he succeeds in showing that the declaration of his default was incorrect. He has unfortunately not been able to do that; hence, the verdict must go against him."

RAMIREZ vs. GMUR FACTS Samuel Bischoff Werthmuller, a native of Switzerland, and for many years a resident of the Philippines, died in Iloilo on June 29, 1913, leaving a valuable estate which he disposed by will. The first clause of the will contains a statement to the effect that inasmuch as the testator had no children from his marriage, he had no forced heirs. In making this statement, the testator ignored the possible claims of two sets of children, born to his natural daughter Leona Castro. It was shown that in 1895, Castro was married to Frederick Von Kauffman, a British subject. Three children were born of this marriage, namely, Elena, Federico and Ernesto. In 1904, Kauffman went to Paris, France for the purpose of obtaining a divorce from Castro under French law. On January 5, 1905, a decree of divorce was issued. On May 5, 1905, Castro married Dr. Ernest Emil Mory, in Westminster, England. Two children were born of that marriage, namely Carmen and Esther, and Leontina who was born before they were married. On October 6, 1910, Castro died. Both sets of children claim that Leona Castro was the recognized natural daughter of Bischoff and as such would have been his forced heir had she been alive at the time of her father's death.] RULING xxx "With reference to the rights of the von Kauffman children, it is enough to say that they are legitimate children, born to their parents in lawful wedlock; and they are therefore entitled to participate in the inheritance which would have devolved upon their mother, if she had survived the testator. As regards the Mor,+ claimants, it is evident that their rights principally depend upon the effect to be given by this court to the decree of divorce granted to Von Kauffman by the Court of First Instance of the City of Paris... xxx We are of the opiniop that the decree of divorce upon which reliance is placed by the representation of the Mory children cannot be recognized as valid in the courts of the Philippine Islands. The French tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain ail action for the dissolution of a marriage contracted in these Islands by persons domiciled here, such marriage being indissoluble under the laws then prevailing in this country. xxx It is established by the great weight of authority that the court of a country in which neither of the spouses is domiciled and to which one or both of them may resort merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce has no jurisdiction to determine their matrimonial status; and a divorce granted by such a court is not entitled to recognition elsewhere. (See Note to Succession of Benton, 59 L.R.A. 143.) The voluntary appearance of the defendant before such a tribunal does not invest the court with jurisdiction. xxx As the divorce granted by the French court must be ignored, it results that the marriage of Doctor Mory and Leona Castro, celebrated in London in 1905, could not legalize their relations; and the circumstance that they afterwards passed for husband and wife in Switzerland until her death is wholly without legal significance. The claims of the Mory children to participate in the estate of Samuel Bischoff must therefore be rejected. The right to inherit is limited to legitimate, legitimated, and acknowledged natural children. The children of adulterous relations are wholly excluded. The word "descendants" as used in Article 941 of the Civil Code cannot be interpreted to include illegitim4tes born of adulterous relations." For as long as the foreign court acquired jurisdiction, its decisions will not be disturbed whether it was reached through an adversary proceeding or by default. In one case, Somportex v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp.," the court rejected Philadelphia's contention that a default judgment rendered by the English courts should not be extended hospitality by American courts. It ruled that "(i)n the absence of fraud or collusion, a default judgment is as conclusive as adjudication between the parties as when rendered after answer and complete contest in open court.... The polestar is whether a reasonable method of notification is employed and reasonable opportunity to be heard is afforded to the person affected."