Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS v. FASGI ENTERPRISES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 167052 2015-03-11	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SECURITIES CORPORATION v. EDGARDO V. GUEVARA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As the foregoing jurisprudence had established, recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment or final order requires only proof of fact of the said judgment or final order. In an action in personam, as in the case at bar, the foreign judgment or final order enjoys the disputable presumption of validity. It is the party attacking the foreign judgment or final order that is tasked with the burden of overcoming its presumptive validity.[38] A foreign judgment or final order may only be repelled on grounds external to its merits, particularly, want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
	AC. NO. 6697 2006-07-25	ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ v. ATTY. LEONARD S. DE VERA PER CURIAM
In Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. v. Fasgi Enterprises, Inc.,[32] we explained that "[a] foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum."
	GR NO. 142830 2006-03-24	WILLIAM GOLANGCO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK* CORONA, J.
We cannot countenance an interpretation that undermines a contractual stipulation freely and validly agreed upon. The courts will not relieve a party from the effects of an unwise or unfavorable contract freely entered into.[12]
	GR NO. 139325 2005-04-12	PRISCILLA C. MIJARES v. SANTIAGO JAVIER RANADA TINGA, J.
The rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations have established a usage among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different countries.[17] This principle was prominently affirmed in the leading American case of Hilton v. Guyot[18] and expressly recognized in our jurisprudence beginning with Ingenholl v. Walter E. Olsen & Co.[19] The conditions required by the Philippines for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment were originally contained in Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was taken from the California Code of Civil Procedure which, in turn, was derived from the California Act of March 11, 1872.[20] Remarkably, the procedural rule now outlined in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure has remained unchanged down to the last word in nearly a century. Section 48 states:SEC. 48. 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:
	GR No. 151298 2004-11-17	SPS. MINIANO AND LETA DELA CRUZ v. CA AND SPS. ARCHIMEDES AND MARLYN AGUILA QUISUMBING, J.
In Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. v. FASGI Enterprises, Inc.,[28] this Court ruled that a party should not, after its opportunity to enjoy the benefits of an agreement, be allowed to later disown the arrangement when the terms thereof ultimately would prove to operate against its hopeful expectations. It was error on the part of the Court of Appeals to rule that Rep. Act No. 6552 applied to the present case, because, according to petitioners, said law applies only when the buyer defaults in the payment of succeeding installments. Petitioners insist that the respondents did not pay any installments at all after the initial downpayment of P1.5 million,[29] after respondents had taken possession and occupancy of the house and lot in question.