Case Digest (G.R. No. 213198)
Facts:
In Genevieve Rosal Arreza v. Tetsushi Toyo, Genevieve, a Filipino citizen, and Tetsushi, a Japanese national, were married in Quezon City on April 1, 1991, and had a son. After nineteen years, they executed a divorce by agreement in Osaka, Japan, which was accepted by the Mayor of Konohana-ku on February 4, 2011, and recorded in Tetsushi’s family register. 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, submitting the Japanese divorce certificate, family register entry, acceptance certificate of the divorce notification, and an English translation of the Civil Code of Japan. No one opposed the petition at the October 16, 2012 hearing. On February 14, 2014, the RTC denied the petition, finding that although the divorce decree was properly authenticated, Genevieve failed to prove Japanese law because her translation lacked authentication by theCase Digest (G.R. No. 213198)
Facts:
- Marriage and Family Background
- On April 1, 1991, petitioner Genevieve Rosal Arreza (Filipino) married Tetsushi Toyo (Japanese) in Quezon City.
- They had one child, Keiichi Toyo.
- Foreign Divorce Proceedings
- After 19 years of marriage, Genevieve and Tetsushi filed a Notification of Divorce by Agreement with the Mayor of Konohana-ku, Osaka City, on February 4, 2011.
- The divorce agreement was recorded in Tetsushi’s Japanese family register, certified by the Mayor of Toyonaka City, Osaka Fu.
- Petition for Recognition in the Philippines
- On May 24, 2012, Genevieve filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry (SP. PROC. No. Q-12-71339).
- She submitted, among others, the Japanese Divorce Certificate; Tetsushi’s family register; the Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce; and an English translation of the Civil Code of Japan.
- The RTC set the case for hearing on October 16, 2012; no opposition appeared, and trial on the merits proceeded.
- Lower Court Decision and Subsequent Proceedings
- On February 14, 2014, the RTC denied the petition, ruling that while the divorce decree was properly proved, Genevieve failed to prove Japan’s law due to lack of authentication of the Civil Code and its English translation.
- A Motion for Reconsideration was filed and denied on June 11, 2014.
- Genevieve then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court on July 1, 2019 (G.R. No. 213198). Respondents filed comments; petitioner filed a reply and later memoranda.
Issues:
- Whether the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan constitutes an “official publication” and is therefore self-authenticating under Rule 131, Section 3(gg) and Rule 132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether the English translation may be admitted as a learned treatise under Rule 130, Section 46 without expert testimony or judicial notice of the translators’ credentials.
- Whether a Rule 45 petition may proceed despite factual issues—namely, the existence and content of Japan’s divorce law—or should be referred to the Court of Appeals under Rule 56, Section 6.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)