G.R. No. 213198, July 1, 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On April 1, 1991, Genevieve, a Filipino citizen, and Tetsushi Toyo (Tetsushi), a Japanese citizen, were married in Quezon City. After 19 years of marriage, the two filed a Notification of Divorce by Agreement. It was later recorded in Tetsushi’s family register as certified by the Mayor of Toyonaka City, Osaka Fu. On May 24, 2012, Genevieve filed before the Regional Trial Court a Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry. The Regional Trial Court rendered a Judgment denying Genevieve’s Petition. It decreed that while the pieces of evidence presented by Genevieve proved that their divorce agreement was accepted by the local government of Japan, she nevertheless failed to prove the copy of Japan’s law. The Supreme Court ruled that the rule in actions involving the recognition of foreign divorce judgment is that it is indispensable that the petition prove not only the foreign judgment but also the alien spouse’s national law. In this case, the documents petitioner submitted to prove the divorce decree have complied with the demands of Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25. However, the copy of the Japan Civil Code and its English translation are insufficient to prove Japan’s law on divorce. These documents were not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan, the Japanese Consul in Manila, or the Department of Foreign Affairs. Accordingly, the English translation submitted by petitioner is not an official publication exempted from the requirement of authentication. Neither can the English translation be considered as a learned treatise. However, in the interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, the case was referred to the Court of Appeals.
FACTS:
On April 1, 1991, Genevieve, a Filipino citizen, and Tetsushi Toyo (Tetsushi), a Japanese citizen, were married in Quezon City. They bore a child whom they named Keiichi Toyo. After 19 years of marriage, the two filed a Notification of Divorce by Agreement, which the Mayor of Konohana-ku, Osaka City, Japan received on February 4, 2011. It was later recorded in Tetsushi’s family register as certified by the Mayor of Toyonaka City, Osaka Fu. On May 24, 2012, Genevieve filed before the Regional Trial Court a Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry. The Regional Trial Court rendered a Judgment denying Genevieve’s Petition. It decreed that while the pieces of evidence presented by Genevieve proved that their divorce agreement was accepted by the local government of Japan, she nevertheless failed to prove the copy of Japan’s law. The Regional Trial Court noted that the copy of the Civil Code of Japan and its English translation submitted by Genevieve were not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan, the Japanese Consul in Manila, or the Department of Foreign Affairs. Aggrieved, Genevieve filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied in the Regional Trial Court’s June 11, 2014 Resolution. Thus, Genevieve filed before this Court the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in denying the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry filed by petitioner – NO, but the case was referred to CA for petitioner to have an opportunity to prove the foreign law
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
When a Filipino and an alien get married, and the alien spouse later acquires a valid divorce abroad, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to remarry provided that the divorce obtained by the foreign spouse enables him or her to remarry. Nonetheless, settled is the rule that in actions involving the recognition of a foreign divorce judgment, it is indispensable that the petitioner prove not only the foreign judgment granting the divorce, but also the alien spouse’s national law. This rule is rooted in the fundamental theory that Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Both the foreign divorce decree and the foreign spouse’s national law, purported to be official acts of a sovereign authority, can be established by complying with the mandate of Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court.
Here, the documents petitioner submitted to prove the divorce decree have complied with the demands of Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25. However, the copy of the Japan Civil Code and its English translation are insufficient to prove Japan’s law on divorce. These documents were not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan, the Japanese Consul in Manila, or the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Petitioner argues that the English translation of the Japan Civil Code is an official publication having been published under the authorization of the Ministry of Justice and, therefore, is considered a self-authenticating document. Petitioner is mistaken. The English translation submitted by petitioner was published by Eibun-Horei-Sha, Inc., a private company in Japan engaged in publishing English translation of Japanese laws, which came to be known as the EHS Law Bulletin Series. However, these translations are “not advertised as a source of official translations of Japanese laws;” Rather, it is in the KANPŌ or the Official Gazette where all official laws and regulations are published, albeit in Japanese. Accordingly, the English translation submitted by petitioner is not an official publication exempted from the requirement of authentication. Neither can the English translation be considered as a learned treatise.
The Regional Trial Court did not take judicial notice of the translator’s and advisors’ qualifications. Nor was an expert witness presented to testify on this matter. The only evidence of the translator’s and advisors’ credentials is the inside cover page of the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan. Hence, the Regional Trial Court was correct in not considering the English translation as a learned treatise. Finally, settled is the rule that, generally, this Court only entertains questions of law in a Rule 45 petition. Questions of fact, like the existence of Japan’s law on divorce, are not within this Court’s ambit to resolve. Nonetheless, in Medina v. Koike, this Court ruled that while the Petition raised questions of fact, “substantial ends of justice warrant that the case be referred to the [Court of Appeals] for further appropriate proceedings.” Thus, in the interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, the case was referred to the Court of Appeals.