G.R. No. 199515 - Racho vs. Seiichi Tanaka

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199515)

Relevant factual background

Racho and Tanaka were married in Las Piñas City on April 20, 2001, and later lived together in Saitama Prefecture, Japan, for nine years without children. Petitioner asserted that Tanaka filed for divorce on December 16, 2009, and that the divorce was granted. She obtained a Divorce Certificate from the Japanese Consulate, had it authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, and later secured in Japan a Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce issued by the Mayor of Fukaya City, Saitama Prefecture. Notices to respondent Tanaka were returned unserved.

Trial court findings and evidentiary ruling

The RTC admitted petitioner’s submission of Japan’s national law (English translation of the Civil Code of Japan) but found the Divorce Certificate insufficient because it did not constitute the divorce decree itself. The RTC characterized the divorce in Japan as a “divorce by agreement” effective upon notification, but concluded petitioner failed to prove notification and acceptance—essential elements under Japanese law to effectuate that kind of divorce.

Subsequent submissions and the Supreme Court’s procedural consideration

After filing the petition for review, petitioner complied with the Supreme Court’s directive to submit a duly authenticated acceptance certificate of the notification of divorce and produced a Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce (December 16, 2009) authenticated by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and further authenticated by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) did not object to admission of that authenticated certificate and did not contend that the case presented primarily factual issues requiring remand.

Governing legal standard for recognition of foreign divorces

Under Article 26, second paragraph, Family Code, a divorce between a Filipino and a foreigner may be recognized in the Philippines if it was “validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry,” thereby granting the Filipino spouse the capacity to remarry. As established in prior jurisprudence (e.g., Garcia v. Recio; Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas), foreign laws and foreign judgments are not judicially noticed by Philippine courts; both the foreign divorce decree and the foreign spouse’s national law must be pleaded and proved as facts in the local action for recognition.

Admissibility of foreign official records under the Rules of Court

Rule 132, Section 24, Rules of Court governs proof of foreign official records: such records must be supported by a certificate from designated consular or diplomatic officers of the Philippines in the foreign country, authenticated by the seal of their office. The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was accompanied by an authentication issued by the Philippine Consul in Tokyo certifying the authority and genuine signature of the Japanese official who signed the certificate. Applying Rule 132, Section 24, the Supreme Court found the Certificate of Acceptance admissible as evidence of the fact of divorce.

Determination under Japanese law whether the divorce was absolute

The Civil Code of Japan (Article 728) provides that “the matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce.” The RTC had already recognized that Japan recognizes both judicial divorce and divorce by agreement, the latter becoming effective upon notification (oral or written) and acceptance under Japan’s Family Registration Law. The authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce, which specifically certifies acceptance of notification of divorce by the Mayor of Fukaya City, satisfied the requisite elements under Japanese law to make the divorce effective and absolute.

Whether Article 26 requires the alien spouse to be the initiator of the foreign divorce

The OSG argued that Article 26 contemplates a divorce “validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse,” implying that only divorces procured by the foreign spouse should be recognized. The Supreme Court rejected this narrow construction, relying on precedent (Republic v. Manalo; Republic v. Orbecido III) that interprets Article 26 to require only that a divorce be validly obtained abroad, not that it be initiated by the alien spouse. The Court explained that the statute’s purpose is to prevent the absurdity and injustice where an alien spouse is free to remarry under his/her national law while the Filipino spouse remains bound under Philippine law.

Gender-equality and constitutional context in statutory interpretation

The Court invoked Article II, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution (recognition of the role of women and ensuring fundamental equality before the law) and related international and domestic commitments (CEDAW and the Magna Carta for Women) to underscore the constitutional imperative against interpretations that disproportionately disadvantage Filipino women, who statistically comprise the majority of mixed marriages with foreign spouses. The Court re

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 199515)

Facts

Petitioner Rhodora Ilumin Racho (also known as Rhodora Racho Tanaka) and respondent Seiichi Tanaka were married on April 20, 2001 in Las PiAas City, Metro Manila.
The spouses lived together for nine years in Saitama Prefecture, Japan, and they had no children.
Petitioner alleged that on December 16, 2009 respondent Tanaka filed for divorce in Japan and that the divorce was granted.
Petitioner secured a Divorce Certificate issued by Consul Kenichiro Takayama of the Japanese Consulate in the Philippines; this document was authenticated by an authentication officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
Petitioner filed the Divorce Certificate with the Philippine Consulate General in Tokyo, where she was informed of administrative changes requiring her to return to the Philippines to register the documents and file an appropriate case for judicial recognition of divorce.
Attempts to register the Divorce Certificate with the Civil Registry of Manila were refused by the City Registrar because there was no court order recognizing it; DFA required a proper court order to renew petitioner’s passport; the National Statistics Office (NSO) advised that annotation in the marriage certificate required a court order capacitating the petitioner to remarry.
Petitioner obtained an English-language edition of the Civil Code of Japan (2000 edition) and relied on it in her case.
On May 19, 2010 petitioner filed a Petition for Judicial Determination and Declaration of Capacity to Marry with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 254, Las PiAas City.
The RTC rendered a Decision on June 2, 2011 denying the Petition on the ground that the submitted Divorce Certificate did not constitute the divorce decree itself.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration; the RTC denied it in an Order dated October 3, 2011, finding that petitioner failed to present the notification of divorce and its acceptance.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court on December 19, 2011; the Supreme Court, in a January 18, 2012 Resolution, deferred action pending the submission of a duly authenticated acceptance certificate of the notification of divorce.
Petitioner subsequently submitted, on March 16, 2012, a duly authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce that she obtained in Japan; the original Japanese document and an English translation were attached to the record.
Petitioner asserted that respondent had secured a marriage license based on the same Divorce Certificate and had remarried another Filipino; the National Statistics Office reportedly found no impediment to the registration of respondent’s subsequent marriage.
Notices to respondent Tanaka were returned unserved.

Procedural History

Trial court (RTC Branch 254, Las PiAas City) docketed SP. Proc. No. 10-0032: Decision (June 2, 2011) denied petitioner’s Petition for Judicial Determination and Declaration of Capacity to Marry for failure to prove that respondent validly obtained a divorce.
RTC denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration by Order dated October 3, 2011 for failure to present notification and acceptance of the divorce.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by Petition for Review on Certiorari filed December 19, 2011 (Rule 45 appeal), raising questions of law.
Supreme Court deferred action by Resolution dated January 18, 2012, requiring submission of a duly authenticated acceptance certificate of notification of divorce.
Petitioner complied on March 16, 2012 with a Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce authenticated through Japanese authorities and further authenticated by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment; petitioner filed a Reply. The OSG did not object to the admission of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce.
Supreme Court (Third Division) resolved the case on the merits for reasons of judicial economy and granted the Petition, reversing and setting aside the RTC Decision and Order.

Issues Presented

Whether the RTC erred in dismissing petitioner’s Petition for Declaration of Capacity to Marry for insufficiency of evidence.
Whether the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is sufficient to prove that a divorce between petitioner and respondent was validly obtained by respondent according to his national law.
Whether a divorce obtained by agreement (divorce by notification and acceptance under Japanese law) qualifies as a divorce “validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry” under Article 26, second paragraph, of the Family Code.
Whether Article 26 requires that the foreign spouse be the one who initiates or obtains the divorce proceedings abroad.
Whether the documentary evidence submitted complied with Rules of Court on proof of foreign official records (Rule 132, Section 24) and was admissible.

Applicable Law and Legal Principles

Article 26, Family Code (as amended by Executive Order No. 227, 1987) — second paragraph: where a marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry.
Article 728, Civil Code of Japan (as presented in the record): “1. The matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce.” (Article quoted and relied upon in the case).
Rule 132, Section 24, Rules of Court — proof of official record kept in a foreign country requires attestation and certificate by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, consular agent, or any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in that country, and authentication by the seal of his office.
Rule 45, Section 1, Rules of Court — petitions for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 shall raise only questions of law; Supreme Court generally will not act as trier of facts.
Established jurisprudential principle: courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and foreign judgments; foreign divorce decrees and the national law of the foreign spouse must be pleaded and proved like any other fact before trial courts (citing Garcia v. Recio and Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas).
Precedential interpretations: Republic v. Manalo and Republic v. Orbecido III elucidate that Article 26 requires only that a divorce be validly obtained abroad and does not demand that the foreign spouse be the party who initiated the foreign proceeding; statutes must be construed in light of their spirit to avoid absurdity or injustice.

Evidence and Admissibility

Petition