G.R. No. 254484 - IN RE: Ordaneza vs. Republic

Janevic Orteza Ordaneza, a Filipino citizen, married Masayoshi Imura, a Japanese national, on April 7, 2006, in Pasay City, Philippines.
The couple obtained a divorce decree by agreement pursuant to the Civil Code of Japan on May 13, 2009.
The divorce notification was duly registered by the Mayor of Karuya-shi, Aichi, Japan on May 15, 2009.

On December 8, 2016, Janevic, through her brother and representative Ricky O. Ordaneza, filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kidapawan City (SP Proc. No. 318-2016), seeking also the change of her civil status from "married" to "single."
The petition was supported by documents including the Special Power of Attorney, Certificate of Marriage, Japanese family register certification with translation and authentication, Divorce Notification similarly translated and authenticated, a Certificate of Publication, and relevant provisions of the Civil Code of Japan with official translation and authentication.

On December 28, 2017, the RTC granted the petition, recognizing the foreign divorce decree and declaring Janevic’s civil status as single, capacitating her to remarry under Philippine law.
The RTC directed the Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City and related authorities to register or annotate the divorce on Janevic’s marriage certificate.
The RTC found sufficient compliance with the procedural requirements, citing the notification of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and publication of the petition, despite the absence of impleading the Local Civil Registrar of Makilala, Cotabato, and the Civil Registrar General.
The RTC referenced *Fujiki v. Marinay* to explain the effects of recognition under Article 26 of the Family Code and held that Philippine courts have jurisdiction to extend the effects of foreign judgment so long as it does not contravene public policy.

The OSG appealed, arguing non-compliance with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court and Article 26 of the Family Code – particularly the failure to prove the foreign spouse's capacity to remarry.
On September 7, 2020, the CA reversed the RTC decision, ruling that Janevic failed to comply with:

The jurisdictional and procedural requirements under Rule 108, including correct venue and joining necessary parties.
The requirements under Article 26, as the capacity of the Japanese spouse to remarry was not sufficiently proven.

Janevic contended that the primary issue was recognition of the foreign divorce decree; the change of civil status was incidental. She argued that compliance with Rule 108 was not mandatory for recognition and the proper venue should be where she resided (Kidapawan City), not where the civil registry was located (Pasay City).
The OSG countered that since the petition also prayed for correction of the civil registry, Rule 108 requirements on venue and parties to implead must be observed and that the capacity of the foreign spouse to remarry was not sufficiently proven.

Whether the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce should be treated as a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
Whether Janevic sufficiently established that her foreign divorce decree complied with the requirements of Article 26 of the Family Code, specifically the capacity of the foreign spouse to remarry.