An unmarried couple living abroad entered into a parenting agreement over their minor child, which was sanctioned by the court. Later, the common-law wife went home to the Philippines with their child in violation of the agreement. The common-law husband followed and filed a case in the Philippines to take custody of the child. The trial court favored the common-law husband in view of the agreement.

The common-law wife assailed the agreement, contending that it was contrary to Philippine law.

While the trial court invalidated the parenting agreement, it nevertheless awarded custody of the child to the husband. Because of this, the wife brought the matter straight to the Supreme Court. The issue resolved by the Highest Court, among others, was whether the parenting agreement executed and given force by a court abroad can be effective here in the Philippines.

It said that such an agreement cannot have force and effect in the Philippines because of the failure to follow proper procedure.

The Highest Court explained: “In the present case, petitioner argues that notwithstanding her voluntary execution of and compliance with the Parenting Plan, it should nevertheless be declared void ab initio for being contrary to law.

“In particular, the provision granting sole physical custody over AAA to respondent is in direct violation of Article 176 of the Family Code, which provides that illegitimate children shall be under the parental authority of their mother. The Parenting Plan was executed in San Diego, California, and was approved in a judgment by the Superior Court of San Diego. Thus, for this Court to determine the validity of the Parenting Plan, it is necessary that the judgment approving it must first be recognized in this jurisdiction.

“As borne by the records, the Parenting Plan executed between the parties cannot be recognized in the Philippines for failure to conform with the rules for recognition of foreign judgments. For this reason, this Court is not placed in a position to resolve the issue on the Parenting Plan’s disputed provisions, given that unless recognized, courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws.

“To begin with, while courts are not bound to mechanically give effect to judgments of foreign tribunals, it was emphasized in Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad v. Court of Appeals that foreign judgments enjoy presumptive validity ‘until a contrary showing, on the basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum.’

“This ruling is consistent with Rule 39, Section 48 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, which clarifies that foreign judgments or final orders against a person ‘is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest[.]’ A party seeking to assail such foreign judgment must discharge the burden of overcoming its presumptive validity, ‘by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.’

“It is fundamental that before such presumption is invoked, the foreign judgment must first be recognized and proven as fact. As declared in Rivera v. Woo Namsun, ‘it is indispensable that in order to breathe life into such foreign judgment, its authenticity must be proven as acts as contemplated under the Rules on Evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law, to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself.’

“After all, ‘Philippine courts are incompetent to substitute their judgment on how a case was decided under foreign law. They are limited to the question of whether to extend the effect of the foreign judgment in the Philippines.’ To prove the foreign judgment and the law on which it is founded, Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court require the presentation of proof.

“A perusal of the records reveals that the evidence failed to adhere to the Rules. Here, what was introduced into evidence was only a copy of the Parenting Plan and three subsequent orders of the Superior Court of San Diego, namely: (1) 6 July 2023 Order to prove that petitioner was given the authority to bring AAA to the Philippines until 10 August 2023; (2) 15 August 2023 Order to prove that petitioner violated the terms in the provisions of the 6 July 2023; and (3) 21 September 2023 Order to prove that the physical custody over AAA is considered permanent.

“More, noticeably absent from the evidence was the very judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego declaring the 9 August 2022 Parenting Plan as valid and binding on both parties. Worse, petitioner did not bother to seasonably and properly apprise the RTC or the CA of the relevant law of California and its legal effects through official publications or a copy thereof, as attested to by the officer having legal custody of such documents.

“It is therefore clear that there was manifest failure to demonstrate full compliance with the Rules to recognize the subject foreign judgment.”

The facts and quoted decision are from S.C. G.R. No. 272461 (21 April 2025). The name of the child and the quoted portion of the decision are redacted.