G.R. No. 116487 - People vs. Cabal y Dumadag

Petitioner Stephen I. Juego-Sakai, a Filipino citizen, married Toshiharu Sakai, a Japanese national, on August 11, 2000, in Japan following Japanese wedding rites.
After two years, the parties obtained a consensual divorce decree in Japan, dissolving their marriage.

On April 5, 2013, petitioner filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Camarines Norte, seeking recognition of the Japanese divorce.
On October 9, 2014, the RTC granted the petition, recognizing the validity and effectivity of the foreign divorce under Philippine law.
On November 25, 2015, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision.

The CA, in an Amended Decision dated March 3, 2016, reversed its earlier ruling.
The CA reasoned that under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, two requisites must be present for recognition:

There is a valid marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and
The foreign spouse obtains the divorce abroad, capacitating him or her to remarry.

The CA found the second requisite missing because the divorce was obtained by mutual agreement (consensual), involving petitioner herself, not solely the alien spouse.
The CA further ruled that petitioner’s failure to submit authenticated copies of the pertinent provisions of the Japanese Civil Code was fatal to her petition.

Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition on May 2, 2016, challenging the CA’s Amended Decision on two grounds:

Whether the CA erred in holding the second requisite of Article 26(2) was not present because petitioner consented to the divorce; and
Whether the CA erred in ruling that there was no substantial compliance with the requirement to submit authenticated copies of the Japanese Civil Code.

Petitioner argued that the type of divorce obtained in Japan was a “Divorce by Agreement,” a prevalent and practical form in Japan, and should be recognized.
She contended that consent by the Filipino spouse does not exclude application of Article 26(2), citing *Republic v. Orbecido III.*
On the evidence issue, petitioner explained her inability to secure authenticated Japanese law copies due to pregnancy and unavailability; she instead photocopied codes at the Japanese Embassy and obtained a document from the Embassy clarifying that they do not issue certified true copies of Japanese law or official translations.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it held that the second requisite for the application of Article 26(2) of the Family Code is not present because petitioner gave consent to the divorce obtained jointly with her Japanese spouse.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that there was no substantial compliance with the requirement to submit authenticated copies of the relevant Japanese Civil Code provisions on divorce.