Rivera vs. Woo Namsun

Factual Background

Petitioner and respondent contracted marriage on April 18, 2007 in Quezon City. The spouses relocated to South Korea in September 2007 and lived together as husband and wife. After approximately one year, their relationship deteriorated because of respondent’s alleged physical and emotional abuse; petitioner returned to the Philippines in 2008 for one month and subsequently returned to South Korea. In 2011 petitioner learned that respondent had filed for and obtained a judgment of divorce from the Seoul Family Court dated June 14, 2011. Respondent remarried Kim Seonyeo on November 8, 2011. Petitioner filed the instant petition for judicial recognition of the foreign judgment of divorce so as to obtain capacity to contract another marriage.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision on March 1, 2017 granting the petition and recognizing the Seoul Family Court judgment of divorce, thereby declaring petitioner capacitated to remarry and ordering cancellation of the Philippine Certificate of Marriage. The RTC treated as sufficient an Authentication Certificate issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Manila (DFA), a Letter of Confirmation by the Embassy of the Republic of South Korea signed by Counselor and Consul Chin Hyun Yong, the Seoul Family Court judgment, and an authenticated copy of the Civil Act of South Korea. The RTC also held that the prior registration by the City Civil Registrar of Manila was void in light of Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, which requires judicial recognition before registration of a foreign divorce. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration urging that petitioner failed to prove the foreign law and that the documents were mere copies lacking proper attestation and proof of custody; the RTC denied reconsideration on September 5, 2017. The OSG appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On March 8, 2019 the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC Decision and dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The CA concluded that petitioner failed to establish the fact of divorce according to South Korean law because the judgment and the Civil Act were presented as unauthenticated copies not shown to be official publications and not attested to by the legal custodian of the records. The CA found that the attestation by Chin Hyun Yong did not establish his status as legal custodian of the Korean records. The CA likewise found the proof of the Civil Act deficient. The CA directed the cancelation of the questioned registration and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on July 10, 2019.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court identified the principal issues as: whether the foreign divorce decree and the national law of Woo Namsun were properly proven during trial; and, assuming they were not properly proven, whether the case should be remanded to the trial court for reception of additional evidence.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner contended that strict compliance with Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 was unnecessary because competent evidence of the South Korean law and the divorce decree existed in the Philippines and because Philippine courts have admitted alternative competent evidence to prove foreign law (citing Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals). Petitioner further argued that, under Article 5(f) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), a consul may act as notary and civil registrar and therefore Counselor and Consul Chin Hyun Yong could validly attest to the records. Petitioner alternatively requested remand for reception of additional evidence in the interest of substantial justice. The OSG maintained that the submitted judgment and law were mere copies and that petitioner failed to comply with the Rules by producing copies attested by the legal custodian or by a Philippine diplomatic or consular officer stationed in South Korea authenticated by seal; the OSG asserted that Chin Hyun Yong was shown only to be a consul in the Philippines and not the legal custodian of the Korean records, and opposed remand.

Legal Framework Governing Recognition of Foreign Divorce

The Court reiterated that Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce and that divorce is contrary to Philippine public policy where both spouses are Filipino, pursuant to Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code and established jurisprudence. Nevertheless, Article 26 of the Family Code recognizes that 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 under Philippine law. The Court emphasized that recognition of foreign divorce requires judicial recognition and that courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and foreign laws. Therefore, both the foreign judgment and the foreign law on which it rests must be established as facts in accordance with the Rules of Evidence. For official records such as foreign judgments and statutes, Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 require proof by official publication or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and, if the record is kept abroad, accompanied by a certificate by the proper Philippine diplomatic or consular officer authenticated by the seal of his or her office; attestation must state that the copy is a correct copy and bear the official seal.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on the Divorce Judgment Evidence

The Court found the evidence offered to prove the Seoul Family Court judgment insufficient. Petitioner submitted notarized copies of the judgment with English and Korean translations, a Letter of Confirmation by the Korean Embassy in the Philippines signed by Chin Hyun Yong, and a DFA Authentication Certificate. The Court held that Chin Hyun Yong’s status as counselor and consul did not establish that he was the officer having legal custody of the Seoul Family Court records or that he had authority to attest that the copies were genuine and correct. The DFA Authentication Certificate merely certified Chin Hyun Yong’s official status without establishing custody of the Korean court’s records. Because the judgment is an official record kept abroad, petitioner should have submitted the certificate required by Section 24 from a Philippine diplomatic or consular officer stationed in South Korea authenticated by seal; petitioner failed to do so.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on the Foreign Law Evidence

The Court likewise found the proof of the Civil Act of South Korea deficient. Petitioner produced an English translation of the Civil Act accompanied by the embassy confirmation and DFA authentication signed by Chin Hyun Yong. The Court observed that the record lacked proof that the English translation accurately reflected the Korean original or that it was sanctioned by the South Korean government, as had been shown in previous cases such as Racho v. Tanaka. The petitioner conceded failure to present the certificate by the Philippine Embassy in Korea or a Philippine consular officer in Korea as required by Secti