Galapon vs. Republic

Facts:

Petitioner Cynthia Galapon (a Filipina) and Noh Shik Park (a South Korean national) were married in Manila on February 27, 2012. Their marriage was dissolved in South Korea by a divorce decree of the Cheongju Local Court dated July 16, 2012, obtained by mutual agreement under Korean law. Cynthia thereafter filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce (Recognition Petition) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, Branch 88.

The RTC found the petition sufficient, set it for hearing, and caused publication. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered a notice of appearance and the provincial prosecutor was deputized to assist. At the hearing, Cynthia did not personally testify; her sister and attorney-in-fact, Abigail Galapon, identified and affirmed a judicial affidavit and testified that Cynthia could not testify due to an expired Korean visa and that Cynthia had consented to the divorce only under duress because Park threatened her.

On July 3, 2015, the RTC granted the Recognition Petition and ordered civil registries to record the foreign divorce, declaring Cynthia capacitated to remarry under Philippine law (Article 26(2), Family Code). The OSG moved for reconsideration, arguing (a) improper venue — the RTC of Manila should have been the forum because the marriage was recorded there (citing Fujiki v. Marinay), and (b) the divorce was obtained by mutual agreement, therefore Article 26(2) (which the OSG read as applying only when the foreign spouse alone obtained the divorce) could not apply to a Filipino. The RTC denied reconsideration on March 17, 2016, reasoning that recognition petitions may proceed under Rule 63 by analogy and that the Article 26(2) requisites were present.

The OSG appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 41. On February 27, 2017, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decisions and dismissed Cynthia’s petition for lack of merit: the CA held that although the venue objection was waived, the divorce had been obtained by mutual agreement and thus could not be recognized under Article 26(2) as applied to Cynthia (the CA construed the provision to require that the foreign spouse alone obtain the divorce). The CA also faulted the RTC’s reliance on Abigail’s testimony as hearsay and lacking personal knowledge. The CA denied Cynthia’s motion for reconsideration on September 29, 2017.

Cynthia filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on November 20, 2017. The Supreme Court granted an extension and later allowed Cynthia to litigate as an indigent party; the OSG filed a comment and Cynthia a...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did the Court of Appeals err in denying recognition, under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, of the foreign divorce decree obtained by joint application of a Filipino spouse and an alie...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)