Case Digest (G.R. No. 195432)
Facts:
Edelina T. Ando v. Department of Foreign Affairs, G.R. No. 195432, August 27, 2014, Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Edelina Ando alleged that she married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese national, on 16 September 2001 in Candaba, Pampanga. Kobayashi obtained a divorce in Japan on 16 September 2004; the divorce certificate was authenticated by the Consulate-General of Japan and the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) in Manila and was registered with the Manila Civil Registry. Believing herself capacitated to remarry, petitioner contracted a second civil marriage to Masatomi Y. Ando on 13 September 2005.
When petitioner later sought renewal of her Philippine passport reflecting her married name with Ando, the DFA refused issuance until she could prove by competent court decision that her marriage to Ando was valid. On 29 October 2010 petitioner filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Third Judicial Region, a Petition for Declaratory Relief (Civil Case No. 137) against the Department of Foreign Affairs praying, inter alia, for declaration that her marriage to Masatomi Ando is valid and for an order directing the DFA to issue a passport under the name Edelina Ando y Tungol.
The RTC initially dismissed the petition on 15 November 2010 for lack of cause and lack of jurisdiction, noting petitioner had not sought judicial recognition of the foreign divorce per Article 13 of the Family Code and suggesting the family court was the proper forum. On 14 December 2010 the RTC granted reconsideration and referred the record to the Family Court; the case was thereafter raffled to Branch 45. On 14 January 2011 Branch 45 again dismissed the petition, concluding petitioner's second marriage was bigamous under Article 35(4) of the Family Code because the foreign divorce had not been judicially recognized in the Philippines; petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in open court on 8 February 2011 for failure to serve the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the DFA.
Petitioner filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review with the Supreme Court on 24 March 2011, contesting the RTC's ruling that she had no cause of action. The DFA, through the OSG, filed a comment arguing (among other points) that (1) petitioner should have exhausted administrative remedies under Republic Act No. 8239 (the Philippine Passport Act of 1996) by appealing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and (2) judicial recognit...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner have a proper cause of action in filing a petition for declaratory relief in the RTC to compel the DFA to issue a passport under her second husband's name (procedural issue of proper forum and cause of action)?
- Was petitioner required to exhaust administrative remedies under R.A. 8239 before seeking judicial relief from the courts?
- Must a foreign divorce obtained by an alien spouse be judicially recognized in the Philippines, and what proof is requi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)