G.R. No. 195432 - Ando vs. Department of Foreign Affairs

Background of the Parties and Marriages
Petitioner Edelina T. Ando married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese national, on 16 September 2001 in Candaba, Pampanga.
On 16 September 2004, Kobayashi obtained a divorce in Japan dissolving his marriage with petitioner. This divorce was documented by a Divorce Certificate authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and registered with the Office of the Civil Registry of Manila.
Believing her marital status reverted to single, petitioner married Masatomi Y. Ando on 13 September 2005 in Sta. Ana, Pampanga.
Kobayashi remarried on 27 December 2005 in Japan, further evidenced by authenticated Japanese family registry records.

Application for Passport and Subsequent Proceedings
Petitioner applied for the renewal of her Philippine passport to reflect her surname with Masatomi Ando but was informed by the DFA that issuance would not be possible until she could prove through a competent court that her second marriage was valid.
On 29 October 2010, petitioner filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Third Judicial Region, Pampanga, seeking:

Declaration that her marriage to Masatomi Ando was valid and subsisting until otherwise declared by a competent court;
Declaration of entitlement to a Philippine passport under the name "Edelina Ando y Tungol"; and
Directive to the DFA to honor said marriage and issue her passport accordingly.

Procedural History in the RTC
RTC Branch 46 initially dismissed the petition on 15 November 2010 for lack of cause of action and jurisdiction, citing non-compliance with Article 13 of the Family Code requiring judicial recognition of foreign divorce.
Upon motion for reconsideration, the RTC on 14 December 2010 referred the case to the Special Family Court (Branch 45), recognizing jurisdiction.
On 14 January 2011, RTC Branch 45 dismissed the petition anew, ruling that the second marriage was bigamous and thus void as the first marriage was not judicially dissolved in the Philippines. The petition for declaratory relief was deemed inappropriate to validate the marriage.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on 8 February 2011 for procedural defects.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court on 24 March 2011, raising the sole issue of whether the RTC erred in ruling that she had no cause of action.

Under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, only spouses may file for nullity of void marriages and the State cannot collaterally attack marriage validity;
Marriages, even if void or voidable, are valid until judicially declared otherwise;
Non-compliance with judicial recognition of foreign divorce should only render marriage irregular but not void;
All requisites for declaratory relief were met; and
Procedural lapses as to notice did not deprive RTC of jurisdiction.

The Petition was improperly verified;
Judicial recognition of foreign divorce is required before remarriage;
Administrative remedies under Republic Act No. 8239 (Philippine Passport Act) were not exhausted;
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the RTC was ineffective to toll appeal period.

Whether or not the RTC erred in ruling the petitioner had no cause of action to seek a declaration that her second marriage was valid despite the foreign divorce obtained by her first husband and the non-recognition thereof under Philippine law.
Whether petitioner was compelled to exhaust administrative remedies under R.A. 8239 before seeking declaratory relief to compel the DFA to issue a Philippine passport under her second married name.
Whether judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree obtained by a foreign spouse is required before the Filipino spouse may remarry and enjoy the legal effects of the subsequent marriage.