The Peruvian legal system admits a foreign country’s right and

capacity to administer justice according to its own jurisdiction and

laws. Notwithstanding, such acknowledgement does not imply that

Peruvian courts will enforce any foreign judgment. In fact, Peruvian

courts will not enforce judgments concerning matters of exclusive

Peruvian jurisdiction. Furthermore, Peruvian Civil Code, in force since

November 14, 1984, states the principle according to which the

enforcement of a foreign judgment has to be based, relies on the

existence of a treaty executed with the country from which the

judgment originates or, failing that, based on reciprocity with the

country of origin. In this sense, absent a treaty, the foreign judgment

will not be enforceable in Peru if Peruvian judgments are not

enforceable in the country of origin or if the legal base and the merits

of the case are subject to review by such country’s courts.

 

 

 

An interesting argument has been brought up by a Peruvian court

in an exequatur during 1987. A summary final judgment issued by the

Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Dade County,

Florida, Case No. 80-10598 CA 13 between Maxfield Texturing Inc.

v. Victoria Fabrics Corp. and others, ordered the defendants to pay in

favor of the plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of US

$122,231.73. This foreign judgment was submitted for exequatur

before the Fourth Civil Hall of the Superior Court of Lima. Despite

the fact that no treaty or evidence of reciprocity was presented, such

Peruvian court acknowledged enforcement. The Peruvian court based

its decision on the fact that legislative aspects and facts in both

countries are similar and that there is no reason to believe that a

Peruvian judgment would be questioned on its validity or would be