Case Summary (G.R. No. 213198)
Relief Sought by Petitioner
Petitioner sought judicial recognition in the Philippines of the foreign divorce obtained by her alien spouse and a declaration of her capacity to remarry.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on May 24, 2012. After hearing (with no opposing appearance), the RTC rendered judgment on February 14, 2014 denying the petition for failure to prove Japan’s law as required; a motion for reconsideration was denied on June 11, 2014. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.
Evidence Presented by Petitioner
Petitioner introduced: a copy of the Divorce Certificate, respondent’s Family Register, Certificate of Acceptance of the Notification of Divorce, and an English translation of the Civil Code of Japan (published by Eibun‑Horei‑Sha, Inc.), among other documents. She asserted that the English translation was published under authorization of Japan’s Ministry of Justice and therefore was an official publication.
Issue Presented
Whether the RTC erred in denying recognition of the foreign divorce on the ground that petitioner failed to prove Japan’s national law, specifically whether the submitted English translation of the Japan Civil Code could be treated as (a) an official publication/self‑authenticating under Rule 131, Section 3(gg) and Rule 132, Section 24; or (b) a learned treatise admissible without further proof of the translators’ or authors’ credentials.
Applicable Law and Legal Principles
Governing substantive rule: Article 26, second paragraph of the Family Code (Executive Order No. 227, 1987) — where a marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry. Evidentiary rules: Rules of Court — Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 (proof of official records of a foreign country by official publication or attested copy with proper consular/diplomatic certificate and seal); Rule 131, Section 3(gg) (presumption as to fact of printing and publication); Rule 130, Section 36 (personal knowledge/hearsay) and Section 46 (learned treatises). Precedents constraining recognition: Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas and related authorities establishing that Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws and that both the foreign judgment and the foreign national law must be pleaded and proved.
Court’s Threshold Analysis on Proof of Foreign Judgment and Law
The Court reiterated the settled rule that foreign judgments and foreign law are not judicially noticed in Philippine courts and must be proven as facts under the Rules of Court. Recognition of a foreign divorce requires proof both of the foreign divorce decree and of the alien spouse’s national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien spouse. Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 prescribe two modes: proof by official publication or by an attested copy accompanied, if the record is kept abroad, by a certificate issued and authenticated by an appropriate Philippine diplomatic/consular officer.
Court’s Findings on the English Translation and Official Publication Argument
The Court found that the English translation submitted was published by Eibun‑Horei‑Sha, Inc., a private Japanese publishing company (the EHS Law Bulletin Series), and that these translations were not advertised as official translations of Japanese law. The Court noted that the KANPO (Official Gazette) is the official medium for publication of Japanese laws (in Japanese). Therefore, the English translation was not an official publication that would be self‑authenticating under Rule 132, Section 24, and it was properly subject to the authentication requirements (consular/diplomatic certificate and seal) when offered to prove Japan’s law.
Court’s Analysis on the Learned Treatise Argument and Hearsay
The Court addressed the contention that the English translation was a learned treatise admissible without further proof. Rule 130, Section 46 permits admission of a published treatise only if the court takes judicial notice or an expert witness testifies that the writer is recognized as an expert in the subject. The RTC did not take judicial notice of the translators’ and advisors’ qualifications, and no expert witness was presented
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 213198)
Court and Case Details
- Third Division, Supreme Court of the Philippines; Decision authored by Justice Leonen.
- G.R. No. 213198, decision date July 01, 2019; reported at 855 Phil. 522; 116 OG No. 40, 6265 (October 5, 2020).
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal and setting aside of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 106, Quezon City, Judgment (Feb. 14, 2014) and Resolution (June 11, 2014) in SP. PROC. No. Q-12-71339.
- Judgment below penned by Judge Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale.
Parties and Caption
- Petitioner: Genevieve Rosal Arreza, a.k.a. "Genevieve Arreza Toyo" — Filipino citizen.
- Respondents: Tetsushi Toyo — Japanese citizen; Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City; Administrator and Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Office.
- Case presents interrelation of foreign divorce obtained by alien spouse and recognition under Philippine law for capacity of Filipino spouse to remarry.
Relevant Chronology and Procedural History
- April 1, 1991: Marriage of Genevieve (Filipino) and Tetsushi (Japanese) in Quezon City; one child, Keiichi Toyo, born of the marriage.
- After 19 years of marriage, Notification of Divorce by Agreement filed in Japan and received by Mayor of Konohana-ku, Osaka City, on February 4, 2011; later recorded in Tetsushi’s family register as certified by the Mayor of Toyonaka City, Osaka Fu.
- May 24, 2012: Petitioner filed Petition before the RTC for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry.
- October 16, 2012: RTC set case for hearing; no opposition appeared on hearing date; jurisdictional requisites established; trial on merits proceeded.
- February 14, 2014: RTC rendered Judgment denying petitioner’s Petition.
- June 11, 2014: RTC denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration by Resolution.
- Petitioner filed Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court; case processed with comment by respondents, reply by petitioner, memoranda, and procedural resolutions culminating in the present decision.
- August 13, 2014: Supreme Court required respondents to file comment.
- March 25, 2015: Court directed petitioner to file reply; petitioner filed reply asserting Ministry of Justice authorization for the Civil Code publication.
- August 3, 2016: Supreme Court dispensed with filing of respondent Tetsushi’s comment; parties required to file memoranda.
- September 23, 2016: Respondents adopted their Comment as their Memorandum.
Factual Findings at Trial and Documentary Evidence
- Petitioner's documentary submissions included:
- Divorce Certificate (copy) evidencing acceptance of divorce agreement by relevant local Japanese authority.
- Tetsushi’s Family Register (koseki).
- Certificate of Acceptance of the Notification of Divorce.
- English translation of the Civil Code of Japan and the Civil Code of Japan (Japanese original or related materials).
- Other supporting documents (specified in the rollo references).
- RTC findings:
- Petitioner proved that the divorce agreement was accepted by the local government of Japan (evidence satisfied Rule 132, Sections 24 & 25 with respect to the foreign divorce records).
- Petitioner failed to prove Japan’s law on divorce because the copy of the Japan Civil Code and its English translation were not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan, the Japanese Consul in Manila, or the Department of Foreign Affairs.
- The English translation’s provenance and authentication were insufficient to establish Japan’s national law for purposes of recognition.
Primary Legal Issue Presented
- Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in denying petitioner’s Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry, specifically whether the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan and its presentation satisfied evidentiary requirements to prove Japan’s law so that the foreign divorce decree’s legal effects could be extended to the Filipino spouse.
Controlling Statutory and Rules Authority Cited
- Article 26, Family Code, as amended (Executive Order No. 227, 1987), including its second paragraph permitting that where a marriage between a Filipino and foreigner is validly celebrated and the foreign spouse later validly obtains a divorce abroad capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
- Rules of Court provisions governing proof of foreign public documents and publications:
- Rule 131, Section 3(gg) — definition and presumption regarding official publication (specifically, presumption of "the fact of printing and publication").
- Rule 132, Section 24 — proof of official record of a foreign country by official publication or attested copy with certificate by Philippine foreign service officer, authenticated by seal.
- Rule 132, Section 25 — attestation requirements for copies of documents/records (attestation must state correctness, be under official seal).
- Rule 130, Section 36 — testimony confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded.
- Rule 130, Section 46 — learned treatises admissible if court takes judicial notice or an expert testifies that the writer is recognized as an expert.
Governing Doctrines on Foreign Judgments and Laws
- Fundamental rule: Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws; they must be pleaded and prove