G.R. No. 199515 - Racho vs. Seiichi Tanaka

Petitioner Rhodora Ilumin Racho (“Racho”) and respondent Seiichi Tanaka were married on April 20, 2001 in Las Piñas City, Metro Manila.
The couple lived together for nine years in Saitama Prefecture, Japan; they had no children.

On December 16, 2009, Tanaka filed for divorce in Japan; the divorce was granted by agreement under Japanese law.
Racho obtained a “Divorce Certificate” issued by the Japanese Consulate in the Philippines, authenticated by the DFA, and later secured in Tokyo a Japanese‐Law English version of the Civil Code of Japan.
Racho attempted to register the divorce in the Philippines but was advised that a judicial recognition order was required for annotation and passport renewal.

On May 19, 2010, Racho filed a Petition for Judicial Determination and Declaration of Capacity to Marry (SP Proc. No. 10-0032) before the RTC of Las Piñas City.
RTC Branch 254 (June 2, 2011) denied the petition, ruling that the Divorce Certificate was not the divorce decree itself.
RTC denied reconsideration (October 3, 2011) for failure to present the notification and its acceptance under Japanese law.

Racho filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) before the Supreme Court, which deferred action for submission of an authenticated acceptance certificate of the divorce notification.
On March 16, 2012, Racho submitted a duly authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce from the Mayor of Fukaya City, Japan.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment contesting the sufficiency of proof and whether “divorce by agreement” satisfies Article 26 of the Family Code.

Whether the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is sufficient evidence to prove a valid foreign divorce by agreement under Japanese law.
Whether, under Article 26, second paragraph of the Family Code, a divorce by agreement validly obtained abroad capacitating the foreign spouse to remarry also confers capacity to remarry on the Filipino spouse.