Title
Republic vs. Kikuchi
Case
G.R. No. 243646
Decision Date
Jun 22, 2022
Filipino-Japanese divorce recognized in PH; fact of divorce proven, but Japanese law insufficiently established; case remanded for further evidence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 243646)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Antecedents
    • Jocelyn Asusano Kikuchi (Filipino) married Fumio U. Kikuchi (Japanese) in 1993.
    • In 2007, Jocelyn and Fumio jointly filed a petition for divorce before the Mayor of Sakado City, Saitama Prefecture, Japan, which issued an Acceptance Certificate upon receipt of their written notification of divorce.
  • Procedural History and Evidence
    • In 2015, Jocelyn, through her attorney-in-fact Edwin Asusano, filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce with the RTC of San Pedro City, Laguna (Branch 93, Sp. Proc. Case No. SPL-0990-15).
    • The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, entered appearance via the OCP with a reservation binding only to notices, orders, resolutions, and decisions served on it, and declined to present controverting evidence.
    • Jocelyn offered and the RTC admitted without objection:
      • The Acceptance Certificate issued by the Mayor of Sakado City.
      • An Authentication from the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan.
      • A photocopy of the English text of the Civil Code of Japan stamped by the Japan Information and Culture Center library.
    • The RTC Commissioner recommended granting the petition; the RTC adopted the report in a June 17, 2016 Order recognizing the divorce and directed annotation of Jocelyn’s Report of Marriage. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
    • The Republic appealed to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 110750), which on November 15, 2018 affirmed the RTC’s Order.
    • The Republic filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the sufficiency of compliance with authentication rules, the hearsay nature of testimony, and the adequacy of proof of Japanese divorce law.

Issues:

  • Main Issue
    • Did the CA err in affirming the RTC’s judicial recognition of the Japanese divorce?
  • Subsidiary Issues
    • Was the fact of divorce adequately proven by Jocelyn?
    • Did Jocelyn properly prove Japanese law on divorce?
    • Should the testimony of Jocelyn’s attorney-in-fact have been excluded as hearsay?
    • Were the foreign documents sufficiently authenticated under Rule 132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.