Boudard v Tait

Facts:
Emilie Boudard, as widow of Marie Theodore Boudard and as guardian of her children born during their marriage obtained a judgment in their favor from CFI Hanoi, French Indo-China for the sum of 40,000 piastras plus interest. The judgment was against Stewart Tait who had been declared in default for his failure to appear at the trial before court.

Theodore Boudard, who was an employee of Stewart Tait, was killed in Hanoi by other employees of Tait, although "outside of the fulfillment of a duty", according to the English translation of a certified copy of the French decision. The dismissal of the complaint was based principally on the lack of jurisdiction of the CFI Hanoi to render judgment. It was found that the Tait was not a resident of, nor domiciled in that country. Also, the evidence adduced at the trial proves that neither Tait nor his agent or employees were ever in Hanoi and that Theodore had never, at any time, been his employee.

Issue:
1. Whether or not court erred in admitting evidence for judicial foreign records (in this case, it was the Hanoi decision).

2. Whether or not the court erred in declaring that it was indispensable for Tait to be served with summons in Hanoi.

3. Whether or not the decision of CFI Hanoi was already conclusive.

Held:
1. Yes, Boudard failed to show that the proceedings against Tait in CFI Hanoi were in accordance with the laws of France then in force.

Further, Boudard failed to show that they are certified copies of judicial records. They argue that the papers are the original documents and that the French consul in the Philippines has confirmed this fact. This is not sufficient to authorize a deviation from the rule established by law. The best evidence of a foreign judicial proceeding is a certified copy with all the formalities required.

2. No. French law regarding summons states that: those who have no known residence in France shall be served summons in the place of their present residence; if the place is unknown, writ shall be placed at the main door of the hall of the court where the complaint is filed.

In the case, it was shown that summons were delivered in Manila to J.M. Shotwell, a representative or agent of Churchill and Tait, Inc. which is an entity entirely different from Tait. Also, evidence shows that Tait was not in Hanoi during the time the complaint was filed by Boudard. The rule is that judicial proceedings in a foreign country,regarding payment of money, are only effective against a party if summons is duly served on him within such foreign country before the proceedings.

3. No. The decision cannot be conclusive to such an extent that it cannot be contested. It merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of Boudard's claim and admits proof to the contrary.

The effect of a judgment of any tribunal of a foreign country is:
- In case of judgment against a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing.

- In case of judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title, but the judgment may be repelled by evidence of:
-> want of jurisdiction
-> want of notice to the party
-> collusion
-> fraud
-> clear mistake of law or fact