Medina vs. Koike

Facts:

Doreen Grace Parilla Medina v. Michiyuki Koike, G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016, the Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Doreen Grace Parilla (Doreen) is a Filipino citizen; respondent Michiyuki Koike (Michiyuki) is a Japanese national. The case involves Doreen’s petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce and a declaration of capacity to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.

Doreen and Michiyuki were married on June 14, 2005 in Quezon City and had two children. On June 14, 2012 they filed for divorce in Japan before the Mayor of Ichinomiya City, Aichi Prefecture; a Divorce Certificate issued that date was recorded in Michiyuki’s Official Family Register in Japan. On February 7, 2013, Doreen filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 106, Quezon City, Sp. Proc. No. Q-13-72692, a petition to have the foreign Divorce Certificate recognized and annotated on her Philippine Certificate of Marriage and for a declaration that she had the capacity to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.

At the RTC hearing no party opposed the petition. Doreen offered as evidence: a Certificate of Receiving/Acceptance of Divorce and Michiyuki’s Family Register (attested by the Philippine Consul for Osaka); a certified machine copy of a Divorce Certificate issued by the Consul for the Ambassador of Japan in Manila and authenticated by the Department of Foreign Affairs; a Manila City Civil Registry certification that the original divorce certificate had been filed there; photocopies and English translations of the Civil Code of Japan and two books titled “The Civil Code of Japan 2000” and “The Civil Code of Japan 2009.”

In a Decision dated July 31, 2014, the RTC denied the petition. The RTC held that, under Article 26 of the Family Code, both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be proven in accordance with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence; the court found that Doreen failed to prove Michiyuki’s national law because the Civil Code materials were not authenticated as required and she did not offer a qualified expert witness to testi...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Is this petition proper for resolution by the Supreme Court under Rule 45 where the controversy turns on factual questions concerning proof of a foreign divorce and foreign law?
• Did the RTC err in denying petitioner’s request for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry under Arti...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)