G.R. No. 186571 - Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas

Gerbert R. Corpuz, originally a Filipino citizen, was naturalized Canadian on November 29, 2000.
On January 18, 2005, he married Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City; he returned to Canada shortly thereafter due to professional commitments.

In April 2005, Corpuz discovered his wife’s infidelity, returned to Canada, and filed for divorce; the Superior Court of Justice in Windsor granted the petition on December 8, 2005 (effective January 8, 2006).
Corpuz presented the Canadian divorce decree to the Pasig City Civil Registry Office, which annotated it on the marriage certificate; an NSO official advised that, under NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982, the decree must first be judicially recognized in the Philippines.

Corpuz filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and declaration of dissolved marriage before the RTC of Laoag City, Branch 11.
Daisylyn Sto. Tomas did not file an opposition but submitted a notarized manifestation expressing her desire to be considered a party-in-interest with a similar prayer.
On October 30, 2008, the RTC denied the petition, ruling that under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code only the Filipino spouse can seek judicial recognition of a foreign divorce to enable remarriage.

Corpuz elevated the RTC decision to the Supreme Court via Rule 45, arguing that Article 26(2) should also benefit the alien spouse and that he has legal interest to prevent potential bigamy prosecution.
The Solicitor General and Daisylyn Sto. Tomas filed Comments supporting Corpuz’s petition.

Whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to an alien spouse the substantive right to petition Philippine courts for recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
Whether an alien spouse has sufficient legal interest to file for recognition of a foreign divorce decree under Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the annotation of the foreign divorce decree on the civil registry without prior judicial recognition is valid, and the proper proceeding for cancellation of such annotation.