Racho vs. Seiichi Tanaka

Facts:

Rhodora Ilumin Racho, a.k.a. "Rhodora Racho Tanaka," petitioner, v. Seiichi Tanaka, Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, and the Administrator and Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Office, respondents, G.R. No. 199515, June 25, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.

Petitioner Rhodora Racho and respondent Seiichi Tanaka were married on April 20, 2001 in Las Piñas City and lived for nine years in Saitama Prefecture, Japan. On December 16, 2009, Tanaka filed for divorce in Japan and the divorce was purportedly granted; Racho obtained a Divorce Certificate issued by Consul Kenichiro Takayama and authenticated by the Department of Foreign Affairs. She filed the Divorce Certificate with the Philippine Consulate General in Tokyo but was told administrative changes required her to return to the Philippines and seek judicial recognition.

Racho attempted to annotate her Philippine civil records and renew her passport, but the Civil Registrar of Manila, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the National Statistics Office refused on the ground that there was no Philippine court order recognizing the foreign divorce. Racho thereafter secured an English version of the Civil Code of Japan and, on May 19, 2010, filed a Petition for Judicial Determination and Declaration of Capacity to Marry with Branch 254, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Las Piñas City (SP. Proc. No. 10-0032).

On June 2, 2011, the RTC denied the petition, finding that Racho failed to prove Tanaka legally obtained a divorce because the Divorce Certificate was not the divorce decree itself; the court held that the foreign law had been sufficiently shown but the proof of the fact of divorce was deficient. Racho’s motion for reconsideration was denied by RTC in an October 3, 2011 Order for lack of documentary proof of the notification and its acceptance under Japanese law.

Racho filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court on December 19, 2011. In a January 18, 2012 Resolution the Court deferred action pending submission of a duly authenticated acceptance certificate of the notification of divorce. Petitioner later submitted a duly authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce (dated December 16, 2009), authenticated by Japanese authorities and by the Philippine Embassy consul in Tokyo. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) commented but did not object to admission of the certificate; it argued primarily that Article 26 of the Family Code required the divorce to be “obtained by the alien spouse” and that petitioner had not shown that the foreign law permitted remarriage following a divorce by ag...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Under Rule 45, may the Supreme Court resolve factual matters in this petition, or must the case be remanded to determine factual issues?
• Is the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce admissible and sufficient to prove that a divorce between petitioner and respondent was validly obtained according to respondent’s (Japanese) national law?
• Does Article 26, second paragraph of the Family Code require that the foreign divorce be initiated by the alien spouse, and does a Japanese “divorce by agreement” that becomes effective upon notification qualify as a divorce that capacitating the ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)