G.R. No. 232269 - Bacaltos Asilo vs. Gonzales-Betic

On February 25, 2014, Shela Bacaltos Asilo (Shela), a Filipino citizen, filed a Petition for Recognition of Foreign Divorce obtained in Hong Kong, SAR China.
Shela alleged that she married Tommy Wayne Appling (Tommy) on November 1, 2002 in Hong Kong, where they lived together until their separation on August 11, 2011.
Shela claimed they eventually obtained a divorce decree in Hong Kong.

On April 28, 2014, RTC found the Petition sufficient and set hearings, ordering publication and service of pleadings to various government offices.
Hearings were conducted on June 27 and July 25, 2014; Shela testified and presented documentary evidence on April 24, 2015.
Exhibits presented included:

Petition and order of hearing;
Proof of service on government offices;
Affidavits and issues of Metro Profile newspaper showing the publication of the order;
Marriage certificates;
Divorce decree with certification;
Tommy’s subsequent marriage contract to another Filipina, Marichu RaAon Gumilao;
Letter from Tommy and wedding picture of Tommy and Marichu.

Shela failed to present the national law on divorce of Hong Kong.
Foreign divorce decree was obtained by Shela, the Filipino spouse, which under Philippine law fails to be recognized.

Reconsideration by RTC denied on December 11, 2015.
Shela filed Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) complaining about the RTC rulings.
On June 20, 2016, CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari, finding procedural grounds:

Asserts procedural defects should not bar meritorious cause.
Cures defective verification.
Substantive claim: relies on Supreme Court jurisprudence (Fujiki v. Marinay) for recognizing foreign divorce decree even if obtained by Filipino spouse.
Emphasizes public interest involved — right to reclaim maiden name.
Asserts psychological incapacity of Tommy under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Points to Tommy’s remarriage as proof of recognition of foreign divorce.

Argues Shela availed wrong remedy and petition was filed out of time.
Maintain second paragraph of Article 26 precludes recognition if Filipino spouse obtained divorce decree.
Notes courts only recognize foreign divorce decrees obtained by foreign spouse.

Whether the denial of recognition of the foreign divorce in favor of the Filipino wife is contrary to the ruling in Fujiki v. Marinay.
Whether the valid foreign divorce judgment entitles the wife to reclaim her maiden name.
Whether the psychological incapacity of the husband under Article 36 of the Family Code can be grounds for recognition of the foreign divorce.
Whether the moral grounds cited from the Holy Scriptures (Matthew 5:31,32) recognizing the husband’s infidelity can be considered in recognizing the foreign divorce.