G.R. No. 254484 - IN RE: Ordaneza vs. Republic

Case Summary (G.R. No. 254484)

Procedural history and antecedent facts

Janevic (Filipino) and Masayoshi (Japanese) were married on April 7, 2006 in Pasay City. They obtained an agreed divorce in Japan on May 13, 2009; the divorce notification was received and registered by the Mayor of Karuya-shi, Aichi on May 15, 2009. On December 8, 2016, Janevic, through her brother and representative Ricky, filed in the RTC of Kidapawan City a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and a parallel prayer to change her civil status from "married" to "single" (SP Proc. No. 318-2016). The RTC granted recognition and ordered annotation of the divorce in the civil registry; the OSG moved for reconsideration and appealed to the CA, which reversed. The petition for review to the Supreme Court ensued.

Trial evidence submitted by petitioner

During trial, petitioner presented a Special Power of Attorney; the Philippine marriage certificate; Japan’s Certification of All Information in Family Register (with English translation and Philippine Consulate authentication); the Divorce Notification (with English translation and Consulate authentication); a certificate of publication; and copies of relevant provisions of the Civil Code of Japan with translation and authentication by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo. Ricky testified on behalf of Janevic.

RTC ruling and its legal basis

On December 28, 2017, the RTC granted the petition, recognized the divorce under Section 48, Rule 39 (Rule 39, Section 48) of the Rules of Court, and declared Janevic single and capacitated to remarry under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. The RTC found documentary compliance with Rule 108 requirements to the extent necessary, noted notice to the OSG and publication, and relied on Fujiki v. Marinay and related jurisprudence for the proposition that recognition of a foreign divorce may be extended to a Filipino spouse to avoid an anomalous situation.

Court of Appeals reversal and grounds

The CA reversed on two principal grounds: (1) noncompliance with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court — the CA held that a petition seeking cancellation or correction of a civil registry entry must strictly observe Rule 108’s venue and party-impleading requirements (petition should have been filed in the RTC where the registry is located, i.e., Pasay City, and must implead the Local Civil Registrar, Civil Registrar General, and affected parties); and (2) noncompliance with Article 26 of the Family Code — the CA found insufficient proof that the foreign (Japanese) spouse was capacitated to remarry under Japanese law because the particular proof submitted did not explicitly establish the foreign spouse’s capacity to remarry following the Japanese divorce.

Issues presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the controlling issues as: (1) whether a petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce should be treated as a petition for cancellation or correction of civil registry entries under Rule 108; and (2) whether the petitioner sufficiently established that the foreign divorce decree complied with the twin requirements of Article 26 (i.e., a valid marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner, and a valid foreign divorce capacitating the foreign spouse to remarry).

Legal framework and controlling precedents applied

The Court relied on existing jurisprudence distinguishing recognition of foreign judgments/decrees (Rule 39, Section 48) from Rule 108 special proceedings for cancellation/correction of registry entries, while acknowledging that recognition may be sought within a Rule 108 proceeding. Key precedents cited include Fujiki v. Marinay, Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, Republic v. Cote, and Republic v. Manalo. Rule 108 has particular venue and impleading requirements (Section 1 — file in the RTC of the province where the civil registry is located; Section 3 — civil registrar and all persons claiming an interest must be made parties). Article 26 (Family Code) requires proof of (a) a valid marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner, and (b) a valid foreign divorce capacitating the foreign spouse to remarry.

Analysis on whether the petition is a Rule 108 proceeding

The Supreme Court held that a petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree is not, per se, a petition under Rule 108 for cancellation or correction of civil registry entries. While recognition can be made in a Rule 108 special proceeding, the presence of a prayer to change civil status (from "married" to "single") invokes the specific requirements of Rule 108 when a petitioner actually seeks an order directing registry cancellation or correction. Because the petition in this case asked for correction of the civil status entry, the Court concluded that the substantive relief of changing civil status may only be granted in a proceeding that complies with Rule 108’s venue and impleading requirements. The Court emphasized the State’s interest in protecting the integrity of the civil registry by enforcing Rule 108’s procedural safeguards and the need for the local civil registrar and other affected parties to be properly before the court when registry entries are ordered changed.

Analysis on proof of foreign law and capacity to remarry under Article 26

The Court reiterated that foreign law and foreign judgments are matters of fact that must be pleaded and proven in accordance with the Rules; courts do not take judicial notice of foreign law. The second paragraph of Article 26 requires that the divorce obtained abroad capacitate the foreign spouse to remarry. Here, the petitioner proved that Japanese law permits divorce by agreement (Article 763 of the Civil Code of Japan was properly presented). Although petitioner alleged restrictions (Articles 732–733) that limit remarriage (notably restrictions on women), the Court assessed the proof actually submitted and the Divorce Notification. The Court found that the divorce by agreement severed the marital relationship and that the official Divorce Notification did not indicate any restriction on the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 254484)

Case Title, Court, and Citation

Third Division, G.R. No. 254484, November 24, 2021.
Matter: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, attacking the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 7, 2020 in CA-G.R. CV No. 05087-MIN.
Petitioner: Janevic Orteza Ordaneza, represented by Ricky O. Ordaneza.
Respondent: Republic of the Philippines.
Decision authored by Justice Carandang; concurrence by Justices Leonen, Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez.

Antecedent Facts

Janevic, a Filipino citizen, and Masayoshi Imura, a Japanese national, were married on April 7, 2006 in Pasay City.
On May 13, 2009, Janevic and Masayoshi obtained a divorce decree by agreement/amicable divorce pursuant to the Civil Code of Japan.
The divorce notification was received and duly registered by the Mayor of Karuya-shi, Aichi on May 15, 2009.
On December 8, 2016, Janevic, through her brother Ricky, filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and for change of civil status from "married" to "single" in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kidapawan City, docketed as SP Proc. No. 318-2016.

Evidence Presented at Trial

Special Power of Attorney executed by Janevic (presented by Ricky).
Certificate of Marriage between Janevic and Masayoshi.
Japan Certification of All Information in Family Register, with English translation and authenticated by the Philippine Consulate General in Osaka, Japan.
Divorce Notification, with English translation and authenticated by the Philippine Consulate General in Osaka, Japan.
Certificate of Publication dated February 17, 2017.
Copy of relevant provisions of the Civil Code of Japan with English translation and authenticated by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan.
References in the record to where the documents appear in the rollo (e.g., Divorce Notification at rollo pp. 101-102).

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Kidapawan City

RTC Decision dated December 28, 2017 (Presiding Judge Jose T. Tabosares).
Dispositive portion: petition granted; pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the divorce by agreement between Janevic O. Ordaneza and Masayoshi Imura is recognized; pursuant to second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, Janevic is declared single and capacitated to remarry under Philippine law; directed Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City, Civil Registrar General, and Philippine Statistics Authority to register or annotate the divorce on the marriage certificate (Registry No. 2006-2124); no costs.
RTC findings:
- Petitioner had proven her petition and compliance with Rule 108 requirements as shown by documents submitted.
- Although the petition did not implead the Local Civil Registrar of Makilala, Cotabato Province, and the Civil Registrar General, RTC found sufficient compliance because the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was notified and the petition was duly published.
- Cited Fujiki v. Marinay in explaining that recognition under Article 26 extends effects to the Filipino spouse to rectify the anomalous situation where the Filipino spouse remains tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to remarry; upon recognition, the judgment may serve as basis for correction/cancellation in civil registry.

RTC Post-Trial Procedural Action

RTC Resolution dated July 3, 2018 denying OSG Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.

Appeal by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to the Court of Appeals (CA)

OSG argued:
- Janevic's petition did not comply with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
- The divorce decree failed to comply with requirements under Article 26 of the Family Code, specifically that the foreign spouse’s capacity to remarry was not sufficiently established.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA)

CA Decision dated September 7, 2020 (penalty reversing RTC).
Dispositive portion: Appeal granted; RTC Decision dated December 28, 2017 and Resolution dated July 3, 2018 reversed and set aside.
CA holdings and reasoning:
- Janevic failed to comply with Rule 108 requirements; since the prayer sought cancellation/correction of an entry in the Civil Registry (change of civil status from "married" to "single"), Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 108 must be strictly observed.
- The petition should have been filed in the RTC where the Civil Registry is located (Pasay City), not in Kidapawan City.
- Local Civil Registrar, Civil Registrar General, and other affected parties were not impleaded.
- No compliance with Article 26: although Japanese law allows divorce by agreement, the capacity of the Japanese husband to remarry was not sufficiently established; submitted Civil Code provisions did not state that the Japanese spouse is capacitated to remarry once divorce decree is obtained.
- The CA placed burden on the party seeking recognition to prove that Japanese law allows the former spouse to remarry.

Issues Certified for Resolution by the Supreme Court

Whether the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce should be treated as a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108.
Whether Janevic sufficiently established that her foreign divorce decree complied with the requirements of Article 26 of the Family Code.

Supreme Court's Resolution on Issue 1 — Nature of the Petition and Application of Rule 108

Holding: A petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree should not necessarily be treated as a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
Guiding authorities and administrative guideline:
- The Court cited A.M. No. 15-02-10-SC (Report of the Committee on Family Courts and Juvenile Concerns), adopting guidelines:
  - Regional Trial Courts shall hear and decide all petitions for recognition of foreign judgment, order, or decree of divorce pursuant to Rule 39, Section 48 of the Rules of Court, regardless of any prayer for court declaration of capacity to remarry under Article 26(2) of the Family Code.
  - Such petitions shall be raffled to regular Regional Trial Courts (not necessarily Family Courts).
  - RTCs shall be guided by Rule 108 (Cancellation/Correction), Rule 39 Section 48(b) (Effect of foreign judgments), and Rule 132 Sections 24 and 25 (proof of official record), per Fujiki v. Marinay and Corpuz v. Sta. Tomas.
- Precedents distinguishing recognition proceedings from Rule 108 cancellation/correction:
  - Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas: Recognized that recognition of foreign judgment relating to Article 26 is not the same as a petition under Rule 108; Rule 108
  ...continue reading