William Borthwick Vs Hon.

Floreliana Castro – Bartolome

G.R. No. L-57338

July 23, 1987

FACTS:

Joseph E. Scallon sought to compel payment by William B. Borthwick on four (4) promissory notes by a case filed before Hawaii’s
Court. Scallon's complaint alleged, that Borthwick, an American citizen living in the Philippines, owned real property interests in
Hawaii where he last resided and transacted business therein; that business dealings which transpired in Hawaii had given rise to the
promissory notes sued upon, and Borthwick had failed to pay the sums thereunder. The promissory notes, which although
uniformly specifying the city of Palos Verdes, Los Angeles, California as the place of payment, also provided that in the event that
payment shall not have been made in full on or before the maturity date at (such) place , payee may select, at his option, Manila,
Philippines, or Honolulu, Hawaii as additional places for payment and any court in any of said places having jurisdiction over the
subject matter shall be a proper Court for the trial of any action brought to enforce payment of this note and the law of the place in
which said action is brought shall apply.

Summons was then served upon Borthwick in California which he ignored thus a judgment of default was entered against him.
Scallon's attempts to have the judgment executed in Hawaii and California failed, because no assets of Borthwick could be found in
those states.

Scallon and his wife then came to the Philippines seeking enforcement of the default judgment of the Hawaii Court. Substituted
service was effected through Bortwick’s “Houseboy”, Fred Daniel.

Judgment of default was then judged against Borthwick by the RTC of Makati for his failure to attend the proceedings.

The court then issued an amended judgment where Borthwick personally received.

He filed a motion for new trial raising the issues below.

ISSUE/s:

1. Is a foreign judgment against a person rendered without jurisdiction over the cause of action and without proper
summons to the defendant enforceable in the Philippines?

2. Has the respondent Judge acquired jurisdiction over the person of defendant when summons was served on an itinerant
gardener who did not reside in defendant's house?

RULING:

1) 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 Makati, 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 the judgment affirming among others the jurisdictional facts, that
Borthwick owned real property in Hawaii and transacted business therein.

2.) This he may obtain only if he succeed 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.
It is not for this Court to disturb the express finding of the Court of First Instance that Daniel was Borthwick's resident
domestic houseboy, and of sufficient age and discretion to accept substituted service of summons for Borthwick. Under
Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, a party appealling from the Courts of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Courts) to the
Supreme Court may "raise only questions of law (and) no other question **," and is thus precluded from impugning the
factual findings of the trial court, being deemed to have admitted the correctness of such findings and waived his right to
open them to question.
In any case, a review of the records shows that the Trial Court was correct in refusing to believe Borthwick's representation
that "Daniel gardens at the residence of Borthwick, then goes home to La Union after gardening itinerantly." As said Court
observed, that situation is "ridiculous," it being I "queer and hardly coincidental why on all papers served on the defendant,
it was Fred Daniel who signed and acknowledged receipt.