Rivera vs. Woo Namsun

Facts:

Petitioner Maricel L. Rivera filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of the Foreign Judgment/Divorce with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 99, Quezon City on September 23, 2015 (amended November 9, 2015), seeking recognition of a divorce decree supposedly rendered by the Seoul Family Court on June 14, 2011 and a declaration that she was capacitated to contract another marriage. Rivera alleged she married respondent Woo Namsun, a South Korean national, on April 18, 2007, lived with him in South Korea, and discovered in 2011 that he had obtained a divorce and later remarried a Chinese national on November 8, 2011. Rivera sought recognition so she could remarry.

At trial Rivera presented notarized copies of the Seoul Family Court judgment with Korean and English translations, an Authentication Certificate by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), a Letter of Confirmation signed by Chin Hyun Yong (Counselor and Consul of the Korean Embassy in the Philippines), and a copy/English translation of the South Korean Civil Act. On March 1, 2017, the RTC granted the petition, recognized the foreign divorce, declared Rivera capacitated to remarry, and ordered the cancellation of the Philippine marriage record; the RTC held the evidence conformed to Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and that registration by the City Civil Registrar without judicial recognition was void per Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a motion for reconsideration before the RTC (asserting noncompliance with Rules of Evidence in proving the foreign law and judgment), which the RTC denied on September 5, 2017. The OSG appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On March 8, 2019, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision, dismissed the petition for lack of merit, and directed cancellation of the prior Manila registration—finding Rivera failed to prove the judgment and the South Korean law because the copies were not official publications and Chin Hyun Yong was not shown to be the legal custodian required by Sections 24–25, Rule 132. The CA denied Rivera’s motion for reconsideration by resolution dated July 10, 2019.

Rivera brought this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) before the Supreme Court, challenging t...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Whether the foreign divorce decree and the national law of Woo Namsun were proven during trial in conformity with Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
• Assuming they were not proven, whether the case should be remanded to the trial court for reception of ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)