Case Summary (G.R. No. 88168)
Petitioner
Edna S. Kondo, through her sister and attorney-in-fact Luzviminda S. Pineda, filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, seeking annotation of her Philippine marriage certificate to reflect the divorce and capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
Respondent
The Civil Registrar General, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the petition and procured affirmance of the trial court’s denial.
Key Dates
• Marriage registered in the Philippines: March 15, 1991
• Divorce obtained in Japan: July 3, 2000
• Recognition petition filed: November 7, 2012
• Trial court decision denying petition: April 10, 2014
• Motion for new trial denied: June 30, 2014
• Court of Appeals decision: March 16, 2016
• Supreme Court decision: March 4, 2020
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision after 1990)
• Family Code, Article 26(2): capacity to remarry when a foreign spouse validly obtains divorce abroad
• Rules of Court, Rule 37, Sections 1–2: grounds and formalities for motion for new trial
Procedural History
Edna established trial court jurisdiction, offered authenticated evidence of the Japanese divorce and its translation, and secured leave to present additional proof, including Japanese Civil Code provisions. The Republic presented no counter-evidence. The case was submitted for decision and denied.
Trial Court’s Findings
The RTC held the divorce—by mutual agreement—did not fall under Article 26(2), which contemplates divorce “obtained abroad by the alien spouse.” It found no proof that Japanese law capacitates remarriage upon such divorce. Edna’s motion for new trial was denied for lack of an affidavit of merit and for inability to show that a second Report of Divorce was newly discovered.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling
The CA affirmed denial of the new trial, ruling that:
- The second Report of Divorce was not “newly discovered” since it existed before and could have been produced with due diligence.
- Edna failed to meet technical requirements under Rule 37, Section 2, by offering only a photocopy without proper authentication.
Although disagreeing with the trial court’s narrow view of Article 26(2), it upheld dismissal on procedural grounds.
Issue Presented
Whether the petition should be remanded for reception of additional evidence—namely, authenticated proof of Japanese law and of Katsuhiro’s capacity to remarry—and whether procedural rules should be relaxed to secure substantial justice.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- Motion for new trial on “newly discovered evidence” requires that evidence be discovered after trial, not producible earlier with reasonable diligence, material, and likely to change the result. Edna failed to satisfy the first two requirements.
- Procedural rules are tools for fairness and may be relaxed in mixed-marriage cases affecting personal status. The Court invoked precedents (Republic v. Manalo; Racho v. Tanaka; MoraAa v. Republic; Garcia v. Recio) granting liberality in r
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 88168)
Facts of the Case
- On March 15, 1991, Edna S. Kondo, a Filipino citizen, and Katsuhiro Kondo, a Japanese national, were validly married before the Head of Hirano Ward in Japan.
- Their marriage was registered with the National Statistics Office of the Philippines on the same date.
- On July 3, 2000, the couple obtained a divorce by agreement in Japan, as evidenced by a Report of Divorce issued by the Japanese authorities.
Procedural History
- November 7, 2012: Edna, through her sister and Attorney-in-Fact Luzviminda S. Pineda, filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Manila, a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree and for annotation of the same on her Philippine marriage certificate.
- The petition was grounded on Article 26(2) of the Family Code, which grants a Filipino spouse capacity to remarry when the foreign spouse validly obtains a divorce abroad.
- The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the petition; the trial court’s jurisdiction was duly established and was not contested by any other party.
Evidence and Trial Proceedings
- Testimony of Luzviminda S. Pineda confirming that Edna was informed in June 2000 of Katsuhiro’s plan to divorce and remarry, corroborated by direct confirmation from Katsuhiro.
- Authenticated Japanese Report of Divorce (July 3, 2000) with English translation.
- Authenticated original Family Register of Katsuhiro.
- Documentary exhibits including: the petition, court orders, summons, compliance with publication, affidavit of publication, authenticated special power of attorney, marriage certificate, and judicial affidavit of Luzviminda.
- Trial court granted leave to present additional evidence, including an English translation of Articles 763–769 of the Japanese Civil Code on divorce by agreeme