Case Summary (G.R. No. 241309)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
Relevant dates in the record: marriage on 18 May 1994; Japanese divorce reported and accepted on 03 April 2008; RTC decision granting recognition on 07 December 2016; CA decision reversing on 25 March 2019 and CA resolution on 22 July 2019; petition to the Supreme Court decided in 2022. The constitutional basis is the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Governing statutes and rules cited include Article 26(2) of the Family Code, Rule 65 (special civil action for certiorari), Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari), and Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court concerning proof of foreign judgments and foreign law.
Factual Background
Petitioner married Japanese national Hiroshi Egami on 18 May 1994. The marriage de facto ended by October 2006, and the spouses obtained a divorce in Japan, reflected in the Family Register and a Certificate of Acceptance/Receiving on 03 April 2008. Petitioner sought recognition of the foreign divorce in the RTC of Quezon City to enable remarriage.
Documentary and Testimonial Evidence Presented
Petitioner testified and introduced: (1) a certified Notification/Report of Divorce authenticated by the Philippine Consulate in Osaka; (2) the Family Register of Egami showing the fact of divorce, certified by Japanese officials and authenticated by Philippine consular authorities; (3) a Certificate of Acceptance/Receiving of the divorce report, similarly certified and authenticated; and (4) excerpts from a book titled The Civil Code of Japan, certified and notarized in Japan and authenticated by the Philippine consul.
RTC Ruling and Reasoning
The RTC (Branch 86, Quezon City) granted recognition of the Japanese divorce. It found petitioner satisfied Article 26(2) requirements, credited the authenticated Notification of Divorce and Certificate of Acceptance as proof of the divorce, relied on Japan’s Civil Code provisions to conclude the marriage was dissolved and the parties restored to unmarried status, and rejected the OSG’s contention that the divorce was mutual and therefore not covered.
Court of Appeals Decision
On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC’s decision and dismissed the petition for recognition. The CA concluded that petitioner failed to properly plead and prove the foreign law governing the divorce, and therefore the divorce could not be recognized under Philippine law despite documentary proof of the divorce report and acceptance certificate.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court identified the issues: (1) whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was a proper recourse or should have been a Rule 45 appeal; (2) whether Philippine courts should recognize a divorce by mutual consent obtained by an alien spouse abroad; (3) whether petitioner complied with Rules of Court in proving the fact of divorce and the foreign national law; and (4) whether the petition was meritorious.
Procedural Jurisdiction and Proper Remedy
The Court explained that certiorari under Rule 65 ordinarily is improper when an appeal under Rule 45 is available. A final CA judgment is generally appealable to the Supreme Court by a verified petition for review under Rule 45, and certiorari is reserved for correcting jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner filed under Rule 65 and did so beyond the 15‑day prescriptive period for a Rule 45 petition. Although the petition could have been dismissed as an improper remedy, the Court exercised its discretion to give due course to the petition in the interest of substantial justice and to address the merits because rigid application of procedural rules would have produced manifest injustice in the circumstances.
Recognition of Divorce by Mutual Consent under Article 26(2)
On the merits, the Court reaffirmed the purpose of Article 26(2): to prevent a Filipino from remaining married in the Philippines when an alien spouse has validly obtained a foreign divorce recognized by the alien’s national law. The Court rejected the OSG’s narrow construction that Article 26(2) requires that the alien spouse alone must have initiated the divorce. The Court relied on controlling precedents (notably Republic v. Manalo and Racho v. Tanaka) holding that Article 26(2) requires only that a divorce be validly obtained abroad under the alien spouse’s national law, irrespective of who initiated the proceedings. Accordingly, a divorce by mutual consent between a Filipino and an alien may be recognized in the Philippines if the documentary and legal requirements are met.
Proof of the Fact of Divorce
The Court acknowledged the strict evidentiary requirements under the Rules of Court because Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments or foreign laws. Under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, a foreign official record not kept in the Philippines must be accompanied by a certificate from the appropriate Philippine diplomatic or consular officer and authenticated by the seal of that office. While petitioner did not submit the Japanese divorce decree itself, the Court held that authenticated documents such as the Certificate of Acceptance/Receiving of a divorce report and the Family Register—properly certified and authenticated—are admissible and may constitute sufficient proof of the fact of divorce, citing Racho and Moraña decisions that accepted similar documentary proof where the divorce was effected administrative ly rather than by a judicial decree.
Failure to Prove Foreign Law (Japanese Law)
Despit
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 241309)
Nature and Procedural Posture
- Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking nullification and setting aside of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 25 March 2019 and Resolution dated 22 July 2019 in CA G.R. CV No. 109890.
- CA reversed and set aside the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 86, Quezon City, Decision dated 07 December 2016 and Resolution dated 26 June 2017 in Civil Case No. R-QZN-14-11882.
- Petition was captioned as a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 but the Court examined whether it was the proper remedy given the existence of an available appeal (Rule 45).
- Although the petition could have been dismissed as an improper remedy, the Supreme Court in the interest of substantial justice gave due course to the petition and reviewed the merits despite procedural defects, because petitioner filed the present petition beyond the 15-day period to file a petition for review under Rule 45 after receiving the CA Resolution on 16 August 2019 and filing on 15 October 2019.
Antecedent Facts and Parties
- Petitioner: Maria Teresa Dino Basa-Egami, a Filipina, married Hiroshi Egami, a Japanese national, on 18 May 1994 in San Miguel, Bulacan (registered under Registry No. 94-00382).
- The marriage effectively ended when the spouses parted ways in October 2006.
- Hiroshi Egami begot a child with another woman and sought divorce from petitioner.
- Petitioner initially resisted but later consented and signed divorce papers.
- On 03 April 2008, petitioner and Egami were issued a Japanese Divorce Decree which was recorded in the Family Register at Nakagawa-ku, Nagoya City.
- A Certificate of Receiving (Certificate of Acceptance of Divorce) was issued by the Head of Nakagawa-ku, Nagoya City stating the Divorce Decree was duly reported on 03 April 2008.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Recognition of Foreign Judgment/Final Order in the RTC to enable her to remarry.
Evidence Presented by Petitioner at Trial
- Petitioner testified and offered documentary evidence consisting, inter alia, of:
- A certified copy of the Notification of Divorce/Report of Divorce, authenticated by Consul Jerome John O. Castro of the Philippine Consulate General, Osaka, Japan.
- Family Register of Hiroshi Egami stating the fact of divorce, certified by Hirchika Hyase, Head of Nakagawa-Ku, Nagoya City on 04 August 2014, and certified/authenticated by Naomi Asano (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Consular Service Division) and Consul Castro.
- A Certificate of Acceptance of Divorce/Certificate of Receiving stating the report of the divorce on 03 April 2008, certified/authenticated by Naomi Asano and Consul Castro.
- Excerpts from the book "The Civil Code of Japan," certified and notarized by Kenji Sugimori, notary of the Osaka Legal Affairs Bureau, and authenticated by Consul Castro.
- The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought dismissal, arguing chiefly that a consensual or mutual foreign divorce is not contemplated by Article 26(2) of the Family Code and, therefore, cannot be recognized by Philippine courts.
RTC Findings and Ruling (Decision dated 07 December 2016)
- RTC granted petitioner’s Petition for Recognition of Foreign Judgment/Final Order and ordered recognition and enforcement of the Japanese Divorce Decree.
- RTC dispositive (reproduced in the record) ordered:
- Recognition, credence, and enforcement of the Divorce Decree as stated in the Notification of Divorce and Certificate of Acceptance of Divorce between petitioner and Hiroshi Egami.
- Declared the marital bond between petitioner and Egami (celebrated 18 May 1994) as deemed dissolved by virtue of the said divorce.
- Directed the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to record/annotate the order dissolving the marriage and to forward an annotated copy to the Office of the Administrator of the Civil Registrar General of the NSO for filing and recording.
- RTC held petitioner complied with Article 26(2) requirements and gave credence to authenticated Notification/Acceptance of Divorce.
- RTC cited Articles 728 and 732 of the Civil Code of Japan to conclude the divorce dissolved the marriage and restored both parties to unmarried status.
- RTC rejected OSG’s contention that the divorce was mutual and thus not recognizable; the trial court concluded the divorce was forced upon petitioner by her husband.
CA Ruling (Decision dated 25 March 2019 and Resolution dated 22 July 2019)
- CA reversed and set aside the RTC Decision and dismissed the Petition for Recognition of Foreign Judgment/Final Order.
- CA held petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for recognition: in particular, deficiency in proving the national law of the foreign spouse (Japan) and certain documentary authentication requirements under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25.
- Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was denied.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 may be given due course and duly considered by the Court.
- Whether Philippine courts should recognize a divorce by mutual consent obtained abroad.
- Whether petitioner sufficiently complied with the Rules of Court in proving:
- the fact of divorce; and
- the national law on divorce of her foreign spouse.
- Whether the Petition is meritorious and should result in recognition of the divorce.
Legal Standards and Doctrinal Principles Applied
- Availability of Appeal vs. Certiorari:
- Section 1, Rule 45 of the