Case Summary (G.R. No. 186571)
Facts of the Marriage and Foreign Divorce
– Gerbert married Daisylyn in Pasig City on January 18, 2005.
– Shortly after, he returned to Canada; upon a surprise visit in April, he discovered Daisylyn’s infidelity.
– Gerbert obtained a Canadian divorce decree on December 8, 2005 (effective January 8, 2006).
– In 2007, seeking to remarry in the Philippines, Gerbert presented the foreign decree to the Pasig City Civil Registrar, who initially annotated “DIVORCED” but was advised by the NSO that judicial recognition was required under NSO Circular No. 4 (1982).
RTC Proceedings and Ruling
– Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and declaration of marriage dissolution.
– Daisylyn did not oppose but sought party-in-interest status with an identical prayer.
– On October 30, 2008, the RTC denied the petition, holding that only the Filipino spouse may invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to secure capacity to remarry.
Issue on Appeal
Whether Article 26 (2nd para.) of the Family Code—providing that when an alien spouse obtains a valid foreign divorce, the Filipino spouse gains capacity to remarry—also grants standing to the alien spouse to seek judicial recognition of that divorce in the Philippines.
Applicable Law
Constitutional Basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (case decided August 11, 2010)
Statutes and Rules:
– Family Code, Article 26 (second paragraph) as amended by EO 227 (1986)
– Rules of Court, Rule 39, Section 48 (effect of foreign judgments)
– Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 24 (proof of official acts)
– Rules of Court, Rule 108 (cancellation/correction of civil registry entries)
– NSO Circular No. 4, s. 1982; Act No. 3753 (registry of divorces)
Interpretation of Article 26, Family Code
– Marriages validly solemnized abroad remain valid in the Philippines except as prohibited.
– EO 227’s insertion of the second paragraph adopted this Court’s rulings in Van Dorn v. Romillo and Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera to protect Filipino spouses from being left married under Philippine law when their alien spouses obtained foreign divorces.
– Legislative intent: confer a substantive right exclusively on the Filipino spouse to be declared free to remarry; Philippine law does not recognize absolute divorce between two Filipino citizens.
Alien Spouse’s Legal Interest under Foreign Judgment Rules
– Although Article 26 (2nd para.) does not grant rights to aliens, a foreign divorce decree is “presumptive evidence of a right” under Rule 39, Section 48.
– A party directly affected by the foreign judgment (i.e., Gerbert) has legal interest to petition for its recognition, provided authenticity and foreign-law conformity are proven.
– Gerbert submitted the decree and its authentication certificates but omitted evidence of Canadian divorce law; absence of this proof warrants remand rather than outright dismissal.
Civil Registry Annotation Irregularities
– The Pasig City Civil Registry’s annotation of the divorce without judicial recognition violated:
• NSO Circular No. 4 (requires final Philippine court order)
• Rule 108’s mandate that registry corrections/cancellations await judicial order and due process
– Registration of the foreign decree is void until a competent Philippine court recognizes it.
Proper Procedure for Recognition and Registry Correction
– Judicial recognition of the foreign divorce may
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 186571)
Facts of the Case
- Gerbert R. Corpuz, formerly a Filipino citizen, acquired Canadian citizenship by naturalization on November 29, 2000.
- On January 18, 2005, Corpuz married Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City; he returned to Canada soon after for professional reasons.
- In April 2005, Corpuz revisited the Philippines, discovered his wife’s extramarital affair, and returned to Canada emotionally distraught.
- Corpuz filed for divorce in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice; the divorce decree was granted on December 8, 2005, and took effect on January 8, 2006.
- Two years later, Corpuz sought to marry a new Filipina fiancée in the Philippines and attempted to register his Canadian divorce on his Philippine marriage certificate.
- An NSO official informed him that under NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982, a foreign divorce decree requires prior judicial recognition in a Philippine court to be enforceable domestically.
Procedural History
- Corpuz filed a petition for judicial recognition of the divorce decree and/or declaration of marriage dissolution before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 11.
- Daisylyn Sto. Tomas did not file a formal opposition but submitted a letter requesting party-in-interest status and expressing her own financial and personal inability to file.
- On October 30, 2008, the RTC denied Corpuz’s petition, holding that only the Filipino spouse may invoke the second paragraph of Article 26, Family Code, to obtain judicial recognition of a foreign divorce.
- Corpuz’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 17, 2009.
- Corpuz elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Issue
- Whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code confers on an alien spouse the right to petition a Philippine court for recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
- Whether, in the absence of such recognition