7/24/2019 Boudard v. Tait

1/1

CONFLICT OF LAWS

CASE NO. 2

BOUDARD V. TAIT

FACTS:

Emilie Boudard (appellant), widow of Marie Theodore Jerome Boudard and guardian of her coappellants, her children born during her marriage with the

deceased (Marie Theodore Jerome Boudard), obtained a judgment in their favor from the Court of irst !nstance of "anoi, rench !ndo#China for the sum of

$%,%%%piastras, plus interest& The judgment was rendered against 'tewart Eddie Tait who had been declared in default for his failure to appear at the trial before

said court& Marie Theodore Jerome Boudard, who was an emploee of 'tewart Eddie Tait, was illed in "anoi b other emploees of said Tait, although *outside of

the fulfillment of a dut*&

Emilie Boudard and children appeal from a judgment of the Court of irst !nstance of Manila dismissing the case instituted b them, thereb overrulingtheir complaint, and sentencing them to pa the costs&

The dismissal of appellants+ complaint b the lower court was based principall on the lac of jurisdiction of the Court of "anoi to render the judgment

in uestion, for the e-ecution of which this action was instituted in this jurisdiction& The lac of jurisdiction was discovered in the decision itself of the Court of

"anoi which states that the appellee was not a resident of, nor had a nown domicile in, that countr&

The evidence adduced at the trial conclusivel proves that neither the appellee nor his agent or emploees were ever in "anoi, rench !ndo#China. and

that the deceased Marie Theodore Jerome Boudard had never, at an time, been his emploee&

ISSUE:

/01 the Court of irst !nstance of Manila erred in dismissing the complaint of Emilie Boudard and children (appellants)2

RULING:

1o& The C! was correct&

3& The appellants failed to show that the proceedings against the appellee in the Court of "anoi were in accordance with the laws of rance then in forcehence it was reall unnecessar for the lower court to admit E-hibits 4, E, and " to M#3, nor can these e-hibits be admitted as evidence&

5& 'aid documents (e-hibits 4#M) are not copies of the judicial record of the proceedings against the appellee in the Court of "anoi, dul certified b

the 6roper authorities there, whose signatures should be authenticated b the Consul or some consular agent of the 7nited 'tates in said countr&

The rule is that the best evide!e "# #"rei$ %udi!ial &r"!eedi$s is a !erti#ied !"&' "# the sa(e )ith all the #"r(alities re*uired b law foronl thus can one be absolutel sure of the authenticit of the record&

8& Moreover, the evidence of record shows that the appellee was not in "anoi during the time mentioned in the complaint of the appellants, nor were his

emploees or representatives& The rule i (atters "# this ature is that %udi!ial &r"!eedi$s i a #"rei$ !"utr'+ re$ardi$ &a'(et "# ("e'+are "l' e##e!tive a$aist a &art' i# su(("s is dul' served " hi( )ithi su!h #"rei$ !"utr' be#"re the &r"!eedi$s.

,The #uda(etal rule is that %urisdi!ti" in personam"ver "residets+ s" as t" sustai a ("e' %ud$(et+ (ust be based u&" &ers"al

servi!e )ithi the state )hi!h reders the %ud$(et.

A &ers"al %ud$(et redered a$aist a "residet+ )h" has either bee served )ith &r"!ess "r a&&eared i the suit+ is )ith"ut validit' &

,The &r"!ess "# a !"urt has " e-traterrit"rial e##e!t+ ad " %urisdi!ti" is a!*uired "ver the &ers" "# the de#edat b'

servi$ hi( be'"d the b"udaries "# the state. N"r has a %ud$(et "# a !"urt "# a #"rei$ !"utr' a$aist a residet "# this !"utr'

havi$ " &r"&ert' i su!h #"rei$ !"utr' based " &r"!ess served here+ a' e##e!t here a$aist either the de#edat &ers"all' "r his

&r"&ert' situated here.,

. 9lso, it cannot be said that the decision rendered b the Court of "anoi should be conclusive to such an e-tent that it cannot be contested, for it

merel constitutes, from the viewpoint of our laws,prima facieevidence of the justness of appellants+ claim, and, as such, naturall admits proof to

the contrar&

*The e##e!t "# a %ud$(et "# a' "ther tribual "# a #"rei$ !"utr'+ havi$ %urisdi!ti" t" &r""u!e the %ud$(et+is as follows:

*3& !n case of a judgment against a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing.

*5. I !ase "# a %ud$(et a$aist a &ers"+ the %ud$(et is &resu(&tive evide!e "# a ri$ht as bet)ee the &arties ad theirsu!!ess"rs i iterest b' a subse*uet title/ but the %ud$(et (a' be re&elled b' evide!e "# a )at "# %urisdi!ti"+ )at "# "ti!e t" the

&art'+ !"llusi"+ #raud+ "r !lear (ista0e "# la) "r #a!t.* ('ec& 833 of 9ct 1o& 3;%&)