G.R. No. 212860 - Republic vs. Cote

On July 31, 1995, Rhomel Gagarin Cote and Florie Grace Manongdo-Cote (respondent) were married in Quezon City, Philippines. Both were Filipinos at the time.
The spouses had a son, Christian Gabriel Manongdo, who was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

On August 23, 2002, Rhomel filed a Petition for Divorce before the Family Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii, citing that the marriage was irretrievably broken.
The divorce decree was granted on the same day, August 23, 2002, dissolving the marriage bonds and restoring both parties to single status, thus permitting either to remarry.

Seven years later, Florie filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for recognition of the foreign divorce decree.
Florie also sought cancellation of her marriage contract and impleaded the Civil Registry of Quezon City and the National Statistics Office (NSO).
The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the Philippines, deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor to represent the State during the trial.

On April 7, 2011, the RTC granted Florie’s petition, declaring her capacitated to remarry upon finality of the decision and issuance of a decree of nullity.
The RTC held that Rhomel was already an American citizen when he obtained the divorce decree.
Citing Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, the RTC recognized the validity of the foreign divorce and allowed Florie to remarry.

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on May 17, 2011.
The RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to file a motion for reconsideration, applying Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages).
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.

In its Decision dated January 21, 2014, the CA denied the petition for certiorari.
The CA ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that petitioner’s failure to submit transcript evidence was fatal to the petition.

The petitioner seeks to reverse the CA’s decision, questioning the applicability of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the State’s personality to intervene, the evidentiary requirements, and validity concerning Rhomel’s citizenship at the time of divorce.

Whether the procedural rules under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC apply to proceedings for recognition of foreign divorce decrees.
Whether the State has the legal personality to intervene in proceedings for recognition of foreign divorce decrees.
Whether the failure of the petitioner to attach the transcript of stenographic notes and judicial affidavit in the petition for certiorari is a fatal defect despite their incorporation in the respondent’s comment.
Whether the RTC erred in granting Florie’s petition for recognition of foreign divorce despite lack of showing that Rhomel was an American citizen at the time of procuring the divorce.