Case Digest (G.R. No. 232269)
Facts:
Shela Bacaltos Asilo v. Presiding Judge Maria Luisa Lesle G. Gonzales-Betic, G.R. No. 232269 (Formerly UDK 15799), July 10, 2024, Supreme Court First Division, Gesmundo, C.J., writing for the Court. The petition is an Appeal by Certiorari seeking review of the Court of Appeals' denial of due course to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which challenged the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 225's denial of a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree.Petitioner Shela Bacaltos Asilo (Shela) filed a Petition for Recognition of a Foreign Divorce (Rule 108) on February 25, 2014, asserting she married Tommy Wayne Appling in Hong Kong on November 1, 2002, separated August 11, 2011, and later secured an absolute divorce in Hong Kong. The RTC found the petition sufficient for hearing, required publication and service to government offices, and set hearings in June and July 2014. Shela testified on April 24, 2015 and offered documentary exhibits (marriage certificate, Hong Kong Decree of Absolute Divorce with vice‑consul certification, affidavit of publication, and evidence of Tommy’s subsequent marriage in the Philippines, among others). The State did not oppose admission of her exhibits.
On August 28, 2015, the RTC denied recognition of the foreign divorce, reasoning mainly that Shela had not proven Hong Kong law and that the divorce had been obtained by the Filipino spouse; Shela’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 11, 2015. Shela filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on April 6, 2016. The CA dismissed the petition as the wrong remedy and found procedural defects in the verification and certification against forum shopping (June 20, 2016), and denied reconsideration (February 28, 2017). Shela then filed the present Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 232269), pressing both procedural complaints (that the CA erred and that defects were cured) and substantive arguments (that her case is controlled by Fujiki v. Marinay, that public interes...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the verification and certification against forum shopping were defective?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly dismiss the petition for certiorari as the wrong remedy where an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 should have been taken?
- On the merits, should the Hong Kong divorce decree be recognized in the Philippines despite the Filipino spouse having initiated the foreign divorce, and was the lower court’s denial contrary to Fujiki v. Marinay?
- If the foreign divorce were recognized, may petitioner resume her maiden name and surname?
- May petitioner rely on Article 36 (psychological incapacity) or considerations drawn...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)