Case Summary (G.R. No. 250445)
Antecedents
After marrying Ayahiro in Tarlac City in 1995 and bearing two children, both spouses mutually filed for divorce in Japan. A Japanese Divorce Certificate dated April 11, 2016, and a Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce were issued by the Embassy of Japan and authenticated by the DFA. Petitioner then recorded the divorce with the Manila Civil Registry and filed a petition for judicial recognition before the Regional Trial Court, Tarlac City (Special Proceeding No. 5491).
Evidence Presented
Through her attorney-in-fact, Petitioner submitted:
• Japanese Divorce Certificate and Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce, both translated into English and authenticated by the Japanese Embassy and the DFA;
• Official English translation of the relevant provisions of the Japanese Civil Code (including Articles 763–769 on divorce by agreement);
• Certificates of authentication by Philippine consular and foreign service officers;
• Proof of recordation with the Manila Civil Registry.
Trial Court Decision
The RTC granted recognition on June 27, 2019, finding that the authenticated documents satisfied Rule 132 Sections 24–25’s requirements for proof of foreign public documents and that under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, Petitioner acquired capacity to remarry. The Republic’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA reversed, holding that:
- Petitioner failed to present a court-issued Japanese divorce decree;
- Authentication by the DFA was insufficient under Rule 132, Sec. 24, which requires authentication by a Philippine foreign-service officer in the country where the record is kept;
- The Filipino Civil Registrar is not the proper custodian for foreign records; and
- Petitioner did not sufficiently plead or prove Japanese divorce law relevant to the nature and effect of the foreign divorce.
Issues on Authenticity and Compliance
The CA’s main objections were that the Divorce Certificate and related documents were not certified by the proper local Japanese civil registrar, and that authentication by the DFA alone did not satisfy Rule 132. It also faulted Petitioner’s evidence on Japanese law as incomplete or irrelevant to the type of divorce obtained.
Burden to Prove Foreign Law
Under binding precedents, a petitioner must allege and prove foreign law to secure recognition of a foreign divorce. Judicial notice of foreign statutes is disallowed; the burden lies with the party relying on such law. The CA found Petitioner’s translation of the Japanese Civil Code insufficiently instructive on divorce-by-agreement effects.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the CA, reinstating the RTC decision. It emphasized:
• Substantial justice and liberal treatment in petitions for recognition of foreign divorce under Article 26(2) of the Family Code;
• Relaxation of procedural requirements where evidence is uncontroverted and the petition affects fundamental personal and family rights;
• The authenticated
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 250445)
The Case
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 258130).
- Seeks reversal of Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 114426:
- Decision dated January 7, 2021 reversing the RTC’s recognition of petitioner’s Japanese divorce.
- Resolution dated November 8, 2021 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Antecedents
- Marriage on August 17, 1995 in Tarlac City between Regie David Tsutsumi (Filipina) and Ayahiro Tsutsumi (Japanese); they had two children.
- Mutual divorce application filed in Japan on April 11, 2016 due to unresolved and irreconcilable differences.
- Divorce Certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan on March 7, 2018, duly authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
- Divorce Certificate recorded in the Manila Civil Registry.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Recognition of Foreign Divorce before RTC Tarlac City (Special Proceeding Case No. 5491, Branch 64).
- Hearing held without objections; petitioner presented documentary and testimonial evidence.
Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling
- Exhibits offered (A–P): petition; court orders; affidavits; publication notices; special power of attorney; certificates (marriage, authentication, acceptance, translation); Japanese Civil Code; Divorce Certificate; local registry certifications.
- Atty. Ronald O. Layawen’s Judicial Affidavit confirmed:
- Petitioner’s residence in Japan and retention of counsel.
- Marriage to and divorce from Ayahiro in Japan.
- Issuance and authentication of Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce and Divorce Certificate.
- Filing of Divorce Certificate in Manila Civil Registry.
- Prayer for recognition under Philippine law.
- RTC Decision (June 27, 2019):
- Recognized the Japanese divorce of April 11, 2016.
- Declared petitioner capacitated to remarry.
- Ordered annotation of divorce on the marriage certificate and recording of judgment in national and local civil registries.
- Rationale: Compliance with Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132, Rules of Court; testimonial and documentary evidence sufficient to prove foreign divorce.