Case Digest (G.R. No. 223628)
Facts:
Edna S. Kondo, represented by Attorney‑in‑Fact, Luzviminda S. Pineda, Petitioner, vs. Civil Registrar General, Respondent, G.R. No. 223628, March 04, 2020, Supreme Court First Division, Lazaro‑Javier, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Edna S. Kondo, a Filipino, married Katsuhiro Kondo, a Japanese national, on March 15, 1991 in Japan; their marriage was registered in the Philippines. On July 3, 2000, the couple obtained a divorce by agreement in Japan and a Report of Divorce was issued. In November 2012 Edna, through her sister and attorney‑in‑fact Luzviminda S. Pineda, filed a petition for judicial recognition of that foreign divorce under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, praying that the Civil Registrar annotate the divorce in the Philippine marriage record.
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 12‑128981 and raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Manila. The RTC required proof of its jurisdiction, which Edna supplied unopposed except for the Republic of the Philippines (through the OSG), and trial on the merits proceeded. Luzviminda testified and offered an authenticated Report of Divorce (Japanese), an English translation, Katsuhiro’s authenticated family register, an authenticated special power of attorney and other documentary exhibits; she later sought to present additional authenticated English translations of Japanese Civil Code provisions on divorce by agreement. By Order dated December 3, 2013 the trial court allowed reception of additional evidence; the Republic did not present its own evidence.
By Decision dated April 10, 2014 the RTC denied the petition, concluding that the divorce was by mutual agreement and thus did not fall within Article 26(2) (which contemplates a divorce obtained by the alien spouse) and that the Japanese law as presented did not show that Katsuhiro was capacitated to remarry. On May 20, 2014 Edna filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging newly discovered evidence — a second Report of Divorce allegedly showing Katsuhiro remarried on May 30, 2001 — and requested time to secure an authenticated English copy. By Resolution dated June 30, 2014 the RTC denied the Motion for New Trial for failure to file the required affidavits of merit under Rule 37, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court and because the second Report was unauthenticated and could have been presented during trial.
Aggrieved, Edna appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CV No. 103150. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated March 16, 2016, affirmed the RTC’s denial of the Motion for New Trial: it held the second Report was not “newly discovered” because it existed during the proceedings and could have been produced, and noted the affidavit/authentication requirements of Rule 37. However, the CA disagreed with the RTC’s narrow reading of Article 26(2) and recognized the rationale behind that statutory exception. The OSG defended the lower courts but did not oppose remand for reception of evidence if the Court saw fit.
Edna file...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the case be remanded to the trial court for reception of additional evidence to establish the foreign law and proof that Katsuhiro was recapacitated to re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)