Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    15 Mijares V Ranada

    Uploaded by

    Mark Bryant Vitor
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the appropriate filing fees for actions to enforce foreign judgments. The case involved 10 Filipino citizens seeking to enforce a $1.9 billion judgment awarded against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos by a US court. The Marcos Estate argued the filing fees were improperly calculated and the case was dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that actions to enforce foreign judgments fall under the category of "other actions not involving property" in Rule 141, requiring only minimal filing fees rather than fees based on the monetary amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    15 Mijares V Ranada

    Uploaded by

    Mark Bryant Vitor
    77 views1 page
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the appropriate filing fees for actions to enforce foreign judgments. The case involved 10 Filipino citizens seeking to enforce a $1.9 billion judgment awarded against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos by a US court. The Marcos Estate argued the filing fees were improperly calculated and the case was dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that actions to enforce foreign judgments fall under the category of "other actions not involving property" in Rule 141, requiring only minimal filing fees rather than fees based on the monetary amount.

    Original Description:

    Digest Agrarian law Mijares vs Ranada

    Original Title

    15 Mijares v Ranada

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the appropriate filing fees for actions to enforce foreign judgments. The case involved 10 Filipino citizens seeking to enforce a $1.9 billion judgment awarded against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos by a US court. The Marcos Estate argued the filing fees were improperly calculated and the case was dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that actions to enforce foreign judgments fall under the category of "other actions not involving property" in Rule 141, requiring only minimal filing fees rather than fees based on the monetary amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    77 views1 page

    15 Mijares V Ranada

    Uploaded by

    Mark Bryant Vitor
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the appropriate filing fees for actions to enforce foreign judgments. The case involved 10 Filipino citizens seeking to enforce a $1.9 billion judgment awarded against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos by a US court. The Marcos Estate argued the filing fees were improperly calculated and the case was dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that actions to enforce foreign judgments fall under the category of "other actions not involving property" in Rule 141, requiring only minimal filing fees rather than fees based on the monetary amount.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    PRISCILLA C. MIJARES et al 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

    G.R. No. 139325 April 12, 2005

    Facts:

    On 9 May 1991, ten Filipino citizens who suffered human rights abuses in the hands of military forces
    during the Marcos regime filed with US district court in Hawaii against Estate of Ferdinand Marcos US
    District Court and Affirmed and awarded them $1,964,005,859.90 as compensatory and exemplary
    damages. Petitioners then filed a Complaint with Makati RTC for the enforcement of the Final Judgment.
    Marcos Estate filed a motion to dismiss, raising the non-payment of the correct filing fees paying only
    P410 , notwithstanding the fact that they sought to enforce a monetary amount of damages in the amount
    of over Two and a Quarter Billion US Dollars (US$2.25 Billion) citing Supreme Court Circular No. 7,
    pertaining to the proper computation and payment of docket fees. In response, the petitioners claimed
    that an action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment is not capable of pecuniary estimation; hence, a
    filing fee of only Four Hundred Ten Pesos (P410.00) was proper, pursuant to Section 7(c) of Rule 141.
    On 9 September 1998 RTC dismissed the subject without prejudice stating that contrary to the petitioners'
    submission, the subject matter of the complaint was indeed capable of pecuniary estimation hence
    petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65

    Issue:

    What provision should govern in filling fees on actions to enforce foreign judgements

    Rulling:

    Absent perhaps a statutory grant of jurisdiction to a quasi-judicial body, the claim for
    enforcement of judgment must be brought before the regular courts, we find that this case is covered by
    Section 7(b)(3) of Rule 141, involving as it does, "other actions not involving property. As crafted, Rule
    141 of the Rules of Civil Procedure avoids unreasonableness, as it recognizes that the subject matter of an
    action for enforcement of a foreign judgment is the foreign judgment itself, and not the right-duty
    correlatives that resulted in the foreign judgment. In this particular circumstance, given that the
    complaint is lodged against an estate and is based on the US District Court's Final Judgment, this foreign
    judgment may, for purposes of classification under the governing procedural rule, be deemed as
    subsumed under Section 7(b)(3) of Rule 141., within the class of "all other actions not involving
    property." Thus, only the blanket filing fee of minimal amount is required

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy