G.R. No. 243646 - Republic vs. Kikuchi

Case Summary (G.R. No. 243646)

Petitioner

The Republic of the Philippines, challenging the recognition of the Japanese divorce decree

Respondent

Jocelyn Asusano Kikuchi, represented by her attorney-in-fact, Edwin E. Asusano

Key Dates

– 1993: Jocelyn and Fumio marry in Japan
– 2007: Divorce filing accepted by Sakado City, Saitama Prefecture
– June 17, 2016: RTC of San Pedro City grants judicial recognition of the divorce
– November 15, 2018: Court of Appeals affirms RTC order
– June 22, 2022: Supreme Court issues final decision

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution (as amended)
– Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, series of 1987), Article 26
– Rules of Court, Rule 45 (extraordinary review) and Rule 132 (proof of official acts and foreign law)

Procedural Background

Jocelyn petitions the RTC for judicial recognition of her 2007 Japanese divorce.
Notice of appearance is entered by the Republic’s representatives, reserving binding effect only for formal orders served on them.
Evidence presented includes the Mayor of Sakado City’s Acceptance Certificate, authentication by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, and an English photocopy of Japan’s Civil Code.
The Republic does not controvert the evidence nor present counter-evidence.
The RTC grants the petition; the Republic’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
The Court of Appeals affirms the RTC.
The Republic elevates the case to the Supreme Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Issue

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s judicial recognition of the divorce decree, given alleged deficiencies in the proof of divorce and proof of Japanese law.

Supreme Court Ruling Overview

The petition is granted in part. The Supreme Court finds:

Exceptions to Rule 45 permit reexamination of factual findings.
The divorce fact is sufficiently proven.
The authenticity of the Acceptance Certificate and its embassy Authentication are valid.
However, proof of Japanese divorce law is legally deficient.
A remand to the RTC is required for receipt of proper evidence on Japanese law.

Factual Findings and Rule 45 Exceptions

The Republic’s challenge raises factual issues—generally barred on certiorari—but fits recognized exceptions:
– Overlooked relevant, undisputed facts;
– Factual findings contradicted by record evidence.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court reviews both RTC and CA factual determinations.

Requirements for Recognition of Foreign Divorce

Under Article 26, Family Code:
– A divorce validly obtained abroad by a foreign spouse capacitating that spouse to remarry also capacitate the Filipino spouse to remarry in the Philippines.
– The party must prove (a) the fact of divorce; and (b) its validity under the foreign spouse’s national law.
– Official acts of a foreign sovereign require proof by official publication or certified copies (Rule 132, §24).

Proof of Divorce

– Jocelyn submitted the Acceptance Certificate issued by the Mayor of Sakado City, authenticated by the Philippine Embassy.
– Precedent (Moraña, Racho) confirms that certificates issued by a Japanese municipal authority, when properly authenticated, suffice as proof of divorce fact.
– The Republic’s lack of objection at trial and its manifestation of no controverting evidence rendered hearsay objections waived.
– The Supreme Court upholds the admissibility and sufficiency of the Acceptance Certificate and its Authentication.

Proof of Japanese Law

– Jocelyn offered a photocopy of an English translation