Case Digest (P.E.T. Case No. 002)
Facts:
Genevieve Rosal Arreza, a.k.a. "Genevieve Arreza Toyo," petitioner, v. Tetsushi Toyo, Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, and the Administrator and Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Office, G.R. No. 213198, July 01, 2019, decided by the Supreme Court Third Division, promulgated October 5, 2020, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Genevieve (a Filipino) and Tetsushi (a Japanese national) were married in Quezon City on April 1, 1991 and had a child, Keiichi Toyo. After 19 years of marriage they executed a Notification of Divorce by Agreement which the Mayor of Konohana-ku, Osaka City, Japan received on February 4, 2011; the divorce was later recorded in Tetsushi’s family register as certified by the Mayor of Toyonaka City, Osaka Fu.
On May 24, 2012, Genevieve filed before the Regional Trial Court (Branch 106, Quezon City) a Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry. She offered, among others, a copy of the Divorce Certificate, Tetsushi’s Family Register, the Certificate of Acceptance of the Notification of Divorce, and an English translation of the Civil Code of Japan. The RTC found the petition sufficient and set the case for hearing on October 16, 2012; no one opposed and the matter proceeded to trial on the merits.
By Judgment dated February 14, 2014, the RTC denied Genevieve’s petition: it accepted that the divorce agreement had been accepted by the Japanese local government but held that Genevieve failed to prove Japan’s national law because the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan was not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan, the Japanese Consul in Manila, or the Department of Foreign Affairs. Genevieve’s motion for reconsideration was denied in an RTC Resolution dated June 11, 2014.
Genevieve then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court contesting the RTC’s refusal to treat the English translation as an official publication and self-authenticating under Rule 131(3)(gg) and Rule 132(25), and alternatively arguing it should be admissible as a learned treatise and that the Court should take judicial notice of the translator’s credentials. The Offic...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner prove the foreign judgment and Japan’s national law as required under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court?
- Is the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan an official publication and therefore self-authenticating under Rule 131(3)(gg) and Rule 132?
- Could the English translation be admitted as a learned treatise and the translator’s credentials be judicially noticed without expert testimony?
- May the Supreme Court resolve the factual issues in this Rule 45 petition, or must the case be referr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)