Title
Juego-Sakai vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 224015
Decision Date
Jul 23, 2018
Filipino petitioner sought recognition of Japanese consensual divorce under Philippine law; SC ruled consent doesn’t bar Article 26(2) benefits, remanded for proof of Japanese law.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224015)

Background and Procedural History

Stephen I. Juego-Sakai, a Filipino citizen, married Toshiharu Sakai, a Japanese citizen, in Japan in 2000. After two years, they jointly obtained a divorce decree in Japan dissolving their marriage. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment before the RTC in Camarines Norte to have the Japanese divorce recognized under Philippine law. The RTC granted the petition on October 9, 2014, recognizing the foreign divorce as valid and effective under Philippine law.

The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the RTC decision on November 25, 2015. However, in an amended decision dated March 3, 2016, the CA reconsidered and set aside its earlier ruling. The CA held that the second requisite of Article 26(2) of the Family Code was not satisfied because the divorce was obtained by agreement of both spouses and not solely by the alien spouse, Toshiharu Sakai. Consequently, it ruled that the divorce could not be recognized in the Philippines. Further, the CA criticized the petitioner for failing to submit authenticated copies of the pertinent Japanese Civil Code provisions, essential for establishing the validity and effect of the foreign judgment.

Issues Raised by the Petitioner

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the divorce obtained by mutual consent of both spouses, including the Filipino petitioner, fails to satisfy the second requisition of Article 26(2) of the Family Code.
  2. Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner’s failure to present authenticated copies of the Japanese Civil Code provisions relating to divorce was a fatal defect to her petition.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner emphasized that the divorce obtained in Japan was a “Divorce by Agreement,” a common and practical form of divorce different from “Judicial Divorce.” She argued that non-recognition of such divorce would unjustly deprive her of benefits under Article 26(2). She asserted that Article 26(2) does not exclude situations where the Filipino spouse consents to the divorce. She cited Republic of the Philippines v. Orbecido III to support the proposition that a Filipino spouse divorced by a foreign citizen-spouse has the capacity to remarry.

Regarding the failure to submit authenticated copies of Japanese law, petitioner explained practical difficulties, including pregnancy and the unavailability of certified copies due to Japanese diplomatic policy, thus asserting she made a substantial compliance by using photocopies from the Japanese Embassy library and documentary evidence of the embassy’s policy.

Supreme Court’s Ruling and Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court granted the petition, relying heavily on its recent landmark ruling in Republic v. Manalo, which addressed similar factual and legal questions. In Manalo, the Court ruled that the fact that it was the Filipino spouse who initiated the foreign divorce proceeding does not preclude the application of Article 26(2) of the Family Code. The provision’s intention is to prevent the unfair scenario where a Filipino spouse remains married under Philippine law while the foreign spouse is free to remarry abroad.

The Court articulated that interpreting the term “obtained” in Article 26(2) to mean the divorce must be initiated solely by the alien spouse departs from legislative intent and frustrates the provision’s purpose. Consequently, the petitioner in this case, despite participating in or even initiating the divorce proceedings jointly with her foreign spouse, is entitled to the capacity to remarry under Philippine law because the divorce decree was validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse, thereby satisfying the two requisites of Article 26(2):

  1. A valid marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner.
  2. A valid foreign divorce obtained by the alien spouse, capacitating the alien to remarry.

However, the Court emphasized that judicial recognition of foreign divorce decrees requires compliance with evidentiary rules. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments or foreign laws; thus, the authenticity of the foreign divorce decree and the foreign law permitting the divorce must be proven under the Rules of Evidence, specifically citing Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. This requires either official publications or certified copies of relevant foreign laws and decrees, authenticated by the proper diplomatic or consular officer.

In this case, while the Office of the Solicitor General did not dispute the authenticity of the divorce decree, petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence of the relevant Japanese law on divorce, which is necessary because Philippine courts are not presumed to know foreign laws. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings to allow presentation of evidence on the pertinent Japanese law.

Separate Concurring Opinion by Justice Caguioa

Justice Caguioa agreed with the result but dissented on the characterization that the facts of Manalo were squarely on point with this case. He observed that the divorce decree here was obtained jointly by both spouses and not solely by the alien spouse, contrasting with Manalo’s facts where only the Filipino spouse obtained the divorce.

Justice Caguioa reiterated his view that Article 26(2) is a narrow exception to the general prohibition of divorce for Filipinos (Article 15, Civil Code) and only applies when a foreign citizen spouse obtains a divorce decree against a Filipino spouse t

    ...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms