FACTS: On December 8, 2004, Ruby Cuevas Ng, a Filipino citizen, and Akihiro Sono, a Japanese national, contracted marriage in Quezon City. Their union bore them a child named Rieka Ng Sono.
After their marriage, the spouses moved to Japan. Unfortunately, their relationship turned sour and they later decided to obtain a divorce. Thus, on August 31, 2007, they secured a “divorce decree by mutual agreement” in Japan as evidenced by the Divorce Certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines. The DFA in Manila then provided an Authentication Certificate and a Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce. Likewise, the City Civil Registry Office of Manila released a Certification guaranteeing that the Divorce Certificate provided by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines was filed and recorded in its office. So, too, the fact of divorce was duly recorded in the Civil Registry of Japan as exhibited by the original copy of the Family Registry of Japan bearing the official stamp of the Mayor of Nakano-Ku, Tokyo, Japan, and supported by its corresponding English translation.
On May 28, 2018, Ruby filed a Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry before the QC RTC.
During the initial hearing, the RTC admitted all the documentary evidence submitted by Ruby for purposes of compliance with jurisdictional requirements. The RTC also allowed her to present her evidence ex parte after making a declaration of general default.
On January 3, 2019, the RTC granted the Petition on the thrust of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines, ratiocinating that there was a valid divorce obtained by Ruby abroad.
Displeased, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, as represented by the OSG, moved for the reconsideration of the Decision, which was eventually denied by RTC.
After, the OSG challenged the RTC Decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the RTC gravely erred in judicially recognizing a foreign divorce that was obtained by mere mutual agreement between the spouses. It centers around how Ruby and Akihiro Sono obtained their divorce, positing that a “divorce by agreement” is not worthy of recognition in the Court’s jurisdiction. Clearly, for a foreign divorce to be recognized in the Philippines, it must be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. The OSG further argued that Ruby failed to prove the foreign divorce law as she did not proffer an authenticated copy of the Japanese Civil Code or one held by the official repository of custodian of Japanese public laws and records.
ISSUES:
1.WON the provision under Article 26(2) of the Family Code does not apply instant case as the divorce decree was obtained by mutual agreement and not through an adversarial proceeding in court; and
● WON Ruby was able to prove the applicable law on divorce in Japan.
RULING:
1.No, Article 26(2) of the Family Code applies in the instant case.
At the onset, it bears stressing that Philippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. Nevertheless, jurisdiction is conferred on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without under going trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of marriage. Article 26 of the Family Code – which addresses foreign marriages or mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner – allows a Filipino spouse to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by an alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The provision states:
Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
The case of Fujiki v Marinay elucidates the nature of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, thus –
The second paragraph of Article 26 is only a corrective measure to address the anomaly that results :from a marriage between a Filipino, whose laws do not allow divorce, and a foreign citizen, whose laws allow divorce. The anomaly consists in the Filipino spouse being tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her country. The correction is made by extending in the Philippines the effect of the foreign divorce decree, which is already effective in the country where it was rendered.
In the landmark case of Republic v.Manalo, the Court emphatically declared that Article 26(2) of the Family Code only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad capacitating the foreigner spouse to remarry, without regard as to who initiated it. Manaloinstructs that there must be a confluence of two elements in order for the second paragraph of the law to be validly applied, to wit: (1) there is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and (2) valid divorce obtained capacitating the parties to remarry regardless of the spouse who initiated the divorce proceedings.
Significantly, the Court clarified that pursuant to the majority ruling in Manalo, Article 26(2) applies to mixed marriages where the divorce decree is (1) obtained by the foreigner spouse; (2) obtained jointly by the Filipino and foreign spouse; and (3) obtained solely by the Filipino spouse.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that “the divorce obtained by petitioner abroad against her foreign husband, whether at her behest or acquiescence, may be recognized as valid in this jurisdiction so long as it complies with the documentary requirements under the Rules of Court.
The text of Article 26(2) of the Family Code does not support a construction to limit recognition of foreign divorce decrees to those issued in judicialproceedings only. A plain reading of Article 26(2) of the Family Code reveals that it only requires that the divorce be “validly obtained abroad.” To insist that the divorce be obtained through judicial proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction is to insert a condition not provided by law. Indeed, the law does not distinguish between divorces obtained through judicial proceedings and administrative proceedings; or between those where one spouse files for divorce and the other contests it, and those where the divorce is a product of mutual agreement.
2. No, Ruby failed prove the applicable law on divorce in Japan.
Here, Ruby offered in evidence an unauthenticated photocopy of the Japanese Civil Code on Divorce and its corresponding English translation. Unfortunately, this does not constitute sufficient compliance with the rules on proof of foreign laws.
Under Rule 132, Secs. 24 and 25 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, public documents of foreign countries must be proved either by official publication or copies attested by the legal custodian of the documents.
Ruby was able to sufficiently and satisfactorily prove the fact of divorce when she submitted into evidence the following documents: 1) an authenticated Divorce Certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines; 2) Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce; 3) Certification by the City Civil Registry Office of Manila acknowledging that a Divorce Certificate was filed and recorded in their office; and 4) an original copy of the Family Registry of Japan issued by the Mayor of Nakano-Ku, Tokyo, Japan with its English translation, evincing that the fact of divorce was duly recorded in the Civil Registry of Japan.
Likewise, the OCA issued Circular No. 157-2022 (Compilation of the Laws of Foreign Countries on Marriage and Divorce) which advised the family courts to take judicial notice of this compilation of foreign divorce laws in the resolution of cases requiring the presentation of such laws. However, OCA Circular No. 157-2022 was eventually superseded by OCA Circular No. 157-2022-A.
The Court clarified that under this OCA Circular, the compilation of foreign divorce laws serves only as a preliminary reference for courts but does not dispense with the requirements under the Revised Rules on Evidence.
Considering that Ruby was able to present certified documents establishing the fact of divorce and that relaxation of the rules will not prejudice the State, the Court remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings and reception of evidence of the Japanese law on divorce.