G.R. No. 141536 - GIL MIGUEL T. PUYAT, VS. RON ZABARTE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the judgment appealed from, the same is AFFIRMED." [3] The Facts The facts of this case, as narrated by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: [4] "It appears that on 24 January 1994, [Respondent] Ron Zabarte commenced [an action] to enforce the money judgment rendered by the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Contra Costa, U.S.A. On 18 March 1994, [petitioner] filed his Answer with the following special and affirmative defenses: x x x x x x x x x `8) The Superior Court for the State of California, County of Contra Costa[,] did not properly acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of and over the persons involved in [C]ase #C21-00265. `9) The Judgment on Stipulations for Entry in Judgment in Case #C21-00265 dated December 12, 1991 was obtained without the assistance of counsel for [petitioner] and without sufficient notice to him and therefore, was rendered in clear violation of [petitioner's] constitutional rights to substantial and procedural due process. `10) The Judgment on Stipulation for Entry in Judgment in Case #C21-00265 dated December 12, 1991 was procured by means of fraud or collusion or undue influence and/or based on a clear mistake of fact and law. `11) The Judgment on Stipulation for Entry in Judgment in Case #C21-00265 dated December 12, 1991 is contrary to the laws, public policy and canons of morality obtaining in the Philippines and the enforcement of such judgment in the Philippines would result in the unjust enrichment of [respondent] at the expense of [petitioner] in this case. `12) The Judgment on Stipulation for Entry in Judgment in Case #C21-00265 dated December 12, 1991 is null and void and unenforceable in the Philippines. `13) In the transaction, which is the subject matter in Case #C21-00265, [petitioner] is not in any way liable, in fact and in law, to [respondent] in this case, as contained in [petitioner's] `Answer to Complaint' in Case #C21-00265 dated April 1, 1991, Annex `B' of [respondent's] `Complaint' dated December 6, 1993. '14) [Respondent] is guilty of misrepresentation or falsification in the filing of his `Complaint' in this case dated December 6, 1993. Worse, [respondent] has no capacity to sue in the Philippines. '15) Venue has been improperly laid in this case.' (Record, pp. 42-44) "On 1 August 1994, [respondent] filed a [M]otion for [S]ummary [J]udgment under Rule 34 of the Rules of Court alleging that the [A]nswer filed by [petitioner] failed to tender any genuine issue as to the material facts. In his [O]pposition to [respondent's] motion, [petitioner] demurred as follows: `2) [Petitioner] begs to disagree[;] in support hereof, [he] wishes to mention that in his `Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses' dated March 16, 1994 [petitioner] has interposed that the `Judgment on Stipulations for Entry in Judgment' is null and void, fraudulent, illegal and unenforceable, the same having been obtained by means of fraud, collusion, undue influence a