Case Digest (G.R. No. 256951)
Facts:
Marietta Pangilinan Johansen v. Office of the Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 256951, November 29, 2021, the Supreme Court Third Division, Carandang, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Marietta Pangilinan Johansen, a Filipino citizen, married Knul Johansen, a Norwegian national, in Norway on June 12, 2015; the marriage was recorded in the Report of Marriage (2016-5780051) at the Philippine Embassy/Consulate in Oslo. The spouses separated in 2017 and Knul obtained a divorce under Chapter 4 of the Norwegian Marriage Act; a Final Decree of Divorce was issued on November 30, 2018 and authenticated by the Philippine Vice Consul in Oslo.On April 25, 2019, petitioner filed a verified Petition for Recognition of Foreign Judgment of Divorce in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 84, Malolos City, Bulacan, seeking: (a) judicial recognition of the Norwegian divorce under the Rules on Evidence/recognition of foreign judgments and (b) annotation/correction of her civil registry entry to reflect her divorced status. She attached the Report of Marriage from PSA, the original authenticated Decree of Divorce with translation, and an authenticated copy of the Norwegian Marriage Legislation.
The RTC declared the petition sufficient in form and substance on May 10, 2019, ordered service on the OCRG, DFA, PSA and the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan, and required publication. The Office of the Solicitor General appeared and authorized the Provincial Prosecutor to represent the State. Proceedings included a compliance hearing (Sept. 26, 2019), presentation of evidence (Dec. 5, 2019), and formal offers admitted (Dec. 13, 2019); the case was noted as submitted for decision on October 19, 2020.
In its Decision dated January 14, 2021, the RTC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that because petitioner sought correction/annotation of the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, venue is governed by Rule 108 (file in the RTC where the corresponding civil registry is located) and thus should have been brought in the RTC of Pasig City or Quezon City (where the Report of Marriage is kept), not Malolos. Reconsid...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is venue under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court jurisdictional?
- Assuming Rule 108 applies, did petitioner comply with Rule 108’s requirements (including proper venue and impleading the local civil registrar) so as to vest the RTC of Malolos wi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)