Republic vs. Cote

Facts:

Republic of the Philippines v. Florie Grace M. Cote, G.R. No. 212860, March 14, 2018, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court; Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concurring.

Petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines (represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, which deputized the City Prosecutor); respondent is Florie Grace Manongdo‑Cote, a Filipino citizen. The dispute arose from respondent’s petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree obtained by her husband, Rhomel Gagarin Cote, in Hawaii.

The spouses were married on July 31, 1995 and had a son born in Honolulu. On August 23, 2002, Rhomel filed for and obtained a decree of absolute divorce in Hawaii. In 2009 (seven years later), respondent filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking recognition of the Hawaiian divorce decree and, by impleading the Civil Registrar of Quezon City and the National Statistics Office (NSO), prayed for cancellation/correction of her marital entries in the civil register pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The Office of the Solicitor General appeared by deputation for the State.

On April 7, 2011 the RTC granted respondent’s petition, finding, inter alia, that Rhomel was an American citizen when he obtained the divorce and that, under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, respondent is capacitated to remarry once the foreign decree is recognized. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on May 17, 2011; the RTC denied the appeal on the ground that Section 20 of A.M. No. 02‑11‑10‑SC (the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) required a prior motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.

In a Decision dated January 21, 2014 and a Resolution dated June 11, 2014 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 122313), the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s certiorari petition, citing among other things procedural omissions (failure to attach material parts of the records and transcript) and emphasizing strict compliance with certiorari requirements. Petitioner moved for review by the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review under Rule 45, challenging (1) the RTC’s application of A.M. No. 02‑11‑10‑SC in a recogni...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion by applying the procedural rules of A.M. No. 02‑11‑10‑SC (nullity/annulment rule) to a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree?

• Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the State lacks personality to intervene in proceedings for recognition of a foreign decree of divorce?

• Was petitioner’s failure to append copies of the transcript of stenographic notes and judicial affidavit fatal to its certiorari petition, notwithstanding respondent’s incorporation and quotation of those documents in her comment?

• Did the CA err in affirming the RTC’s grant of respondent’s petition for recognition of the foreign divorce despite lack of showing that the former Fil...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)