Company: YDDL
Filing Date: 2025-06-09
Form Type: F-1/A
Source: 0001213900-25-052277
Chunk: 146

Company: One & one Green Technologies. INC
Filing Date: 2025-06-09
Form: F-1/A
Chunk 146
---
 obtained from the U.S. courts under civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities law if such judgment is determined by the courts of the Cayman Islands to give rise to obligations to make payments that are penal or punitive in nature. A Cayman Islands court may stay enforcement proceedings if concurrent proceedings are being brought elsewhere. 98 Subject to the above limitations, in appropriate circumstances, a Cayman Islands court may give effect in the Cayman Islands to other kinds of final foreign judgments such as declaratory orders, orders for performance of contracts and injunctions. Philippines According to our legal advisors in the Philippines, it is possible to enforce a foreign judgment in the country, albeit subject to specific requirements. Despite not being a party to any international treaty or convention regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments, Philippine laws accept into its jurisprudence and procedural rules the viability of enforcing a foreign judgment (BPI Securities Corporation v Guevara GR No 167052, 11 March 2015). The Philippines subscribes to the rules of comity, utility and convenience of nations by which foreign judgments are reciprocally respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions (Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc., v FASGI Enterprises, Inc., GR No 1373378, 12 October 2000). A foreign judgment, however, merely creates a right of action and, as such, is not enforceable simply by execution. A foreign judgment does not bind Philippine courts unless it is recognized and enforced in the Philippines. The action for recognition of a foreign judgment does not require the re -litigationof the case before a Philippine court. Once admitted and proven in a Philippine court, a foreign judgment can only be repelled by evidence of grounds external to its merits, such as want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Thus, relative to the enforcement of foreign judgments in the Philippines, there is a general right to seek such recognition and enforcement, as well as a right to defend against such enforcement on the grounds of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Foreign judgments are disputably presumed valid (BPI Securities Corporation v Guevara, GR No 167052, 11 March 2015). Philippine courts will only exercise a limited review of foreign judgments and are not allowed to delve into their merits (Minoru Fujiki v Marinay, GR No 196049, 26 June 2013