Case Summary (G.R. No. 232269)
Procedural Background
Shela filed her Petition for Recognition of a Foreign Divorce on February 25, 2014, alleging she married Tommy in Hong Kong on November 1, 2002, and that they had divorced. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially set a hearing and required publication and service of the order to concerned offices. After presentation of her testimony and documents supporting the divorce, the RTC denied her petition on August 28, 2015, primarily because Shela did not prove the relevant Hong Kong divorce law and because she obtained the divorce decree herself, which the RTC interpreted as insufficient for recognition in the Philippines.
Court of Appeals Ruling
Shela's appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed for procedural grounds on June 20, 2016. The CA noted that Shela improperly used a petition for certiorari instead of a notice of appeal and found deficiencies in her verification of the petition. This dismissal was then sustained in a subsequent resolution on February 28, 2017.
Issues Raised by Petitioner
Shela raised several issues, including whether the CA correctly dismissed her petition; whether the foreign divorce judgment could support her claim to revert to her maiden name; whether her husband’s psychological incapacity warranted recognition of the divorce; and whether biblical principles regarding divorce should be considered.
Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed Shela's appeal, declaring her procedural approach as flawed. It underscored that Shela failed to allege in her initial pleadings Tommy's nationality as well as the national law governing divorce in his country, rendering her case fatally deficient. The CA's dismissal on procedural grounds was deemed appropriate.
Grounds for Court's Decision
The Court highlighted that both the foreign divorce decree and the relevant national law of the alien spouse must be clearly alleged and proven for recognition in the Philippines. Since Shela did not specify Tommy's nationality, nor cite the corresponding law that recognizes the divorce she secured in Hong Kong, her petition was insufficient under the legal framework governing foreign divorces, particularly Article 26 of the Family Code.
Legal Principle and Precedents
The ruling referred to the established principle that a Filipino's petition to recognize a foreign divorce obtained abroad must prove the foreign nation's laws that allow for
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 232269)
Background and Procedural History
- Petitioner Shela Bacaltos Asilo filed a Petition for Recognition of a Foreign Divorce obtained in Hong Kong against her spouse Tommy Wayne Appling.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 225, Quezon City denied the petition on August 28, 2015 and later denied reconsideration on December 11, 2015.
- Shela sought relief by filing a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied the petition on procedural grounds that it was the wrong remedy, and further found defects in verification and certification against forum shopping.
- Shela's Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was also denied on February 28, 2017.
- This case involves an appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the CA’s rulings and the RTC’s denial of recognition of the foreign divorce.
Issues Presented
- Whether the denial of recognition of the foreign divorce decree is contrary to the Court’s ruling in Fujiki v. Marinay.
- Whether petitioner can reclaim her maiden name after recognition of the foreign divorce.
- Whether the spouse’s permanent and irreversible incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code may be grounds supporting recognition of the divorce.
- Whether grounds recognized in Matthew 5:31–32 (fornication/concubinage by husband) can be considered in favor of recognition.
Factual Background
- Shela and Tommy married on November 1, 2002 in Hong Kong and lived there together until separation on August 11, 2011.
- A foreign divorce decree was obtained in Hong Kong.
- Petitioner offered documentary evidence including marriage certificates, divorce decree, proof of publication for the case, letter from Tommy, and subsequent marriage contract of Tommy to another woman.
- Petitioner testified that Tommy remarried after the divorce was granted.
RTC Ruling and Reasoning
- Petition denied on grounds that petitioner failed to present and prove the foreign (Hong Kong) law on divorce.
- The divorce decree was obtained by Shela, the Filipino spouse, and under Philippine law, recognition requires the foreign divorce to be obtained by the foreign spouse.
- The failure to allege and prove the foreign spouse’s nationality and the national law recognizing the divorce was fatal.
CA Ruling and Reasoning
- Petition for Certiorari dismissed as the wrong procedural remedy; an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 was the proper mode.
- Petition was dismissed because it was filed out of time, and the verification and certification were defective.
- The CA held Shela failed to allege grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction, which are grounds necessary for certiorari under Rule 65.