G.R. No. 195432 - Ando vs. Department of Foreign Affairs

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195432)

Factual Background

Petitioner alleged that she married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese national, on 16 September 2001. The husband obtained a divorce in Japan on 16 September 2004, and petitioner produced a copy of the Divorce Certificate authenticated by the Consulate-General of Japan and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Manila, and a certification of its registration with the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila dated 28 October 2005. Believing herself entitled to remarry, petitioner contracted a civil marriage with Masatomi Y. Ando on 13 September 2005. The petitioner later applied to renew her Philippine passport to reflect the surname Ando, but the DFA informed her that it would not issue the passport until she proved by competent court decision that her marriage to Ando was valid.

Petition in the RTC

On 29 October 2010 petitioner filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief pursuant to Rule 63, Rules of Court, impleading Department of Foreign Affairs as respondent. She prayed that the RTC declare as valid and subsisting her marriage to Masatomi Y. Ando until otherwise declared, adjudge her entitled to a Philippine passport under the name Edelina Ando y Tungol, and direct the DFA to honor her marriage and issue the passport in that name.

Trial Court Proceedings and First Dismissal

On 15 November 2010 the RTC dismissed the petition for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. The court held that petitioner had not complied with Art. 13, Family Code, which the RTC read to require judicial recognition in the Philippines of a foreign decree of absolute divorce before a Filipino spouse may remarry. The court further observed that the matter fell within the authority of the Family Court.

Reconsideration and Referral

Petitioner filed an ex parte motion for reconsideration on 3 December 2010. On 14 December 2010 the RTC granted reconsideration and referred the case to the Family Court of the jurisdiction for appropriate action. The case was then raffled to Branch 45.

Subsequent Dismissal and Motions

On 14 January 2011 Branch 45 dismissed the Petition anew for lack of cause of action. The RTC reasoned that petitioner's second marriage constituted bigamy under Art. 35(4), Family Code, because the foreign divorce obtained by Kobayashi had not been judicially recognized in the Philippines; therefore the second marriage could not be considered valid at that time. The court rejected petitioner's reliance on A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and explained that the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity does not, by itself, render a second marriage valid. Petitioner filed an ex parte motion for reconsideration on 1 February 2011, which the RTC denied in open court on 8 February 2011 on the ground that neither the Office of the Solicitor General nor respondent had been furnished with copies of the motion.

Petition for Review to the Supreme Court and Issues Framed

Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45, Rules of Court, raising the single issue whether the RTC erred in ruling that she had no cause of action. She argued that under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC only the spouses may seek a declaration of absolute nullity and that collateral attack by the State or a declaratory relief action could not properly be used to invalidate her remarriage. Petitioner further contended that a marriage, even if void or voidable, remains valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding and that any irregularity in compliance with procedural requisites should not affect the legality of the marriage. Petitioner also asserted that her motion for reconsideration did not have to be served because the RTC had not yet obtained jurisdiction over the DFA.

DFA's Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Through the Office of the Solicitor General the Department of Foreign Affairs argued that the petition was improperly verified; that judicial recognition by a Philippine court of a foreign divorce decree obtained by an alien spouse was required before a Filipino spouse may remarry and enjoy the legal effects of remarriage; that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies under R.A. 8239 by appealing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; and that petitioner's ex parte motion for reconsideration before the RTC was a nullity that did not toll the period to appeal, rendering the RTC's dismissal final.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review for lack of merit. The Court held that petitioner pursued an improper remedy to secure issuance of a passport and that she failed to establish entitlement to recognition of her second marriage because she had not carried her evidentiary burden to prove the validity of the foreign divorce under the national law of her alien spouse.

Legal Reasoning: Administrative Remedy for Passport Denial

The Court explained that petitioner should have first availed herself of the administrative remedy provided by R.A. 8239 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The IRR prescribes documentary requirements for a married woman who elects to adopt her husband's surname, including presentation of the marriage contract and, where the woman was divorced by an alien husband, a certified true copy of the Divorce Decree duly authenticated by the Philippine Embassy or consular post with jurisdiction. The IRR further provides an administrative appeal to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs within fifteen days from notice of denial, cancellation or restriction, and Sec. 9, R.A. 8239 affords judicial review in due course from the Secretary's decision. The Court found petitioner’s contention that she had merely been told informally that the passport could not be issued insufficient to negate the availability of the statutory administrative remedy.

Legal Reasoning: Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce

On the question of the validity of petitioner’s remarriage, the Court held that recognition in the Philippines of a divorce obtained ab

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 195432)

Parties and Procedural Posture

EDELINA T. ANDO filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45, Rules of Court seeking nullification of RTC Orders dismissing her Petition for Declaratory Relief.
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS appeared through the Office of the Solicitor General and opposed the petition.
The case originated as a Petition for Declaratory Relief filed with the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, initially raffled to Branch 46 and later transferred to Branch 45.
The Supreme Court resolved the petition by denying relief and explicitly left open petitioner’s recourse to available remedies.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese national, on 16 September 2001 in Candaba, Pampanga.
Kobayashi obtained a divorce in Japan on 16 September 2004 and a Divorce Certificate was authenticated and registered with the Manila Civil Registry.
Believing herself capacitated to remarry, petitioner married Masatomi Y. Ando on 13 September 2005 in Sta. Ana, Pampanga.
Petitioner sought renewal of her Philippine passport to reflect her married name Ando but was informed by the DFA that issuance would not be made until the validity of her marriage to Ando was proven by competent court decision.

Reliefs Sought

Petitioner prayed for a declaration that her marriage to Masatomi Y. Ando was valid and subsisting until otherwise declared by a competent court.
Petitioner prayed for a declaration that she was entitled to a Philippine passport under the name Edelina Ando y Tungol.
Petitioner prayed for an order directing the DFA to honor her marriage to Ando and to issue her a passport under the name Edelina Ando y Tungol.

Lower Court Proceedings

The RTC dismissed the petition on 15 November 2010 for lack of cause of action and jurisdiction, noting noncompliance with Art. 13, Family Code regarding judicial recognition of foreign divorce.
The RTC granted reconsideration on 14 December 2010 and referred the case to the Family Court for disposition.
After re-raffle, the RTC dismissed the petition again on 14 January 2011 for lack of cause of action, citing Art. 35(4), Family Code on bigamy and insufficiency of judicial recognition of the foreign divorce.
The RTC denied reconsideration on 8 February 2011 on procedural grounds relating to service of the motion, making the 14 January 2011 order final for purposes of the appeal.

Issues Presented

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the RTC erred in ruling that petitioner had no cause of action in her Petition for Declaratory Relief.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner contended that a marriage, even if void or voidable, remained valid until judicially declared otherwise and that a declaratory relief action was available to protect her status and secure a passport.
Petitioner further contended that noncompliance with Art. 13, Family Code was a mere irregularity and that the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity did not render a remarriage invalid.
DFA contended that the petition was improperly verified, that administrative remedies under R.A. 8239 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations were not exhausted, and that petitioner failed to prove both the fo