G.R. No. 249410 - Basa-Egami vs. Bersales

Case Summary (G.R. No. 249410)

Procedural History and Applicable Law

The petitioner filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 86) for recognition of the Japanese divorce decree pursuant to Article 26(2) of the Philippine Family Code and the Rules of Court. The RTC granted the petition on December 7, 2016, declaring the foreign divorce valid and directing the annotation of the dissolution in civil registry records. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed, contending that only divorces obtained through adversarial proceedings without Filipino consent are recognized under Article 26(2). The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the RTC’s decision in 2019, dismissing the petition. The petitioner sought review via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented to the Court

Whether the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy;
Whether Philippine courts should recognize foreign divorces obtained by mutual consent of spouses;
Whether petitioner sufficiently complied with the evidentiary requirements proving the fact of divorce and the relevant foreign law; and
Whether the Petition is meritorious on its substantive grounds.

Proper Remedy and Jurisdictional Concerns

The Court acknowledged that the appropriate remedy against the final decision of the CA is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, not a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, which is reserved for correcting jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion. Nonetheless, because the petition was filed beyond the 15-day period for Rule 45 relief and in the interest of substantial justice, the Court chose to relax procedural rules and considered the petition on its merits.

Recognition of Divorce by Mutual Consent

The Court reaffirmed that under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, a divorce validly obtained abroad by an alien spouse is recognized in the Philippines, thereby dissolving the marriage bond. This includes divorces obtained by mutual consent, rejecting the OSG’s restrictive interpretation that only divorces obtained without Filipino consent are valid. The ruling cited the landmark Supreme Court case Republic v. Manalo, which adopted a purposive interpretation of Article 26(2) to prevent situations where a Filipino remains married under Philippine law despite a valid foreign divorce of the alien spouse. The decision aligned with subsequent rulings such as Racho v. Tanaka, emphasizing that recognition is not dependent on who initiated the foreign divorce.

Sufficiency of Evidence of Fact of Divorce

The petitioner introduced documentary evidence including: (1) Notification of Divorce, (2) Certificate of Acceptance of Divorce, and (3) the Family Register of Hiroshi Egami, all certified and authenticated by appropriate Japanese and Philippine consular authorities. While the actual divorce decree was not submitted, the Court held that, consistent with Manalo, Racho, and Moraña v. Republic, a Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce issued by an official Japanese authority is sufficient proof of the fact of divorce. The principle of stare decisis requires consistent application of this standard where facts are substantially similar.

Failure to Properly Prove Foreign Law

Despite finding the evidence of the fact of divorce sufficient, the Court agreed with the CA and OSG that petitioner failed to properly prove the applicable foreign law governing the validity of the divorce under Japanese law. The Court clarified that Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws; therefore, both the foreign divorce decree and the foreign law authorizing such divorce must be proven as facts under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The copies of the Japanese Civil Code excerpts submitted were uncertified and lacked proper authentication by Philippine foreign service officials, and the English translation was not an official publication or a duly proven learned treatise, thus failing the evident

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 249410)

Facts and Background

Petitioner Maria Teresa Dino Basa-Egami, a Filipina, married Hiroshi Egami, a Japanese national, on May 18, 1994.
The couple separated in October 2006. Egami fathered a child with another woman and sought a divorce from petitioner.
Initially opposing the divorce, petitioner eventually consented due to persistent requests from Egami.
On April 3, 2008, they were issued a Japanese Divorce Decree, recorded in the Family Register at Nakagawa-ku, Nagoya City, Japan. A Certificate of Receiving this divorce notification was likewise issued by the official in Nagoya City.
Petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Petition for Recognition of Foreign Judgment/Final Order to enable her to remarry under Philippine law.

Trial and Initial Evidence Submitted by Petitioner

Petitioner presented:
1. Certified copy of Notification of Divorce/Report of Divorce, authenticated by the Philippine Consulate General in Osaka, Japan.
2. Family Register of Egami indicating their divorce, certified by Japanese officials and duly authenticated by the Philippine consulate.
3. Certificate of Acceptance of Divorce/reporting of divorce filed in Nagoya City, similarly certified and authenticated.
4. Excerpts from "The Civil Code of Japan," certified and notarized by an Osaka Legal Affairs Bureau notary and authenticated by the Philippine Consulate.

Position of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)

OSG argued for dismissal, asserting that Article 26(2) of the Philippine Family Code does not contemplate recognition of consensual or mutual divorces obtained abroad.
OSG maintained that only foreign divorces obtained through an adversarial judicial process without Filipino spouse's consent are valid for recognition.

RTC Decision

The RTC granted the petition recognizing the Japanese Divorce Decree, declaring the marriage dissolved under Philippine law.
The RTC found petitioner complied with all Article 26(2) requirements.
Credited the submitted proof including Notification and Acceptance Certificates as authentic evidence of the divorce fact, duly authenticated.
Cited the Civil Code of Japan Articles 728 and 732 as effecting the dissolution of marriage and restoration of capacity to remarry.
Rejected OSG's argument that the divorce was consensual and thus unrecognizable, holding instead that the divorce was forced upon petitioner by her husband, removing mutual consent as a bar.

Court of Appeals (CA) Reversal

CA reversed the RTC ruling and dismissed the Petition for Recognition of Foreign Judgment, undermining petitioner’s compliance with documentary requirements.
The CA emphasized petitioner’s failure to properly plead and prove the Japanese law on divorce, indispensable for recognition.
The CA held that the certificates submitted were not equivalent to the divorce decree itself and questioned the authenticity and sufficiency of the evidence on foreign law.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

Whether the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy and may be heard.
Whether Philippine courts should recognize a foreign divorce obtained by mutual consent.
Whether petitioner sufficiently proved the fact of divorce and the applicable Japanese law in accordance with procedural rules.
Whether the Petition merits relief on substantive grounds.

Supreme Court Ruling on Procedural Posture

The Petition was technically an improper remedy because a petition for review under Rule 45—the correct mode of appeal—is available for CA decisions.
Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for lost or lapsed appeals and only corrects jurisdictional or grave abuse of discretion errors.
The CA decision was final and within its jurisdiction; no evident grave abuse of discretion was established.
Although late filing barred a Rule 45 p