G.R. No. 224015, July 23, 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Petitioner Stephen I. Juego-Sakai and Toshiharu Sakai got married on August 11, 2000 in Japan pursuant to the wedding rites therein. After two (2) years, the parties, by agreement, obtained a divorce decree in said country dissolving their marriage. Thereafter, on April 5, 2013, petitioner filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment before the Regional Trial Court Camarines Norte. The RTC granted the petition and recognized the divorce between the parties as valid and effective under Philippine Laws. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. In an Amended Decision, however, the CA revisited its findings and recalled and set aside its previous decision because the divorce herein was consensual in nature, obtained by agreement of the parties, and not by Sakai alone. The Supreme Court held that applying the ruling in Manalo, despite the fact that petitioner participated in the divorce proceedings in Japan, and even if it is assumed that she initiated the same, she must still be allowed to benefit from the exception provided under Paragraph 2 of Article 26. Consequently, since her marriage to Toshiharu Sakai had already been dissolved by virtue of the divorce decree they obtained in Japan, thereby capacitating Toshiharu to remarry, petitioner shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. Nevertheless, petitioner has yet to comply with certain guidelines before the courts may recognize the subject divorce decree and the effects thereof. What remains to be proven is the pertinent Japanese Law on divorce considering that Japanese laws on persons and family relations are not among those matters that Filipino judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function.
FACTS:
Petitioner Stephen I. Juego-Sakai and Toshiharu Sakai got married on August 11, 2000 in Japan pursuant to the wedding rites therein. After two (2) years, the parties, by agreement, obtained a divorce decree in said country dissolving their marriage. Thereafter, on April 5, 2013, petitioner filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment before the Regional Trial Court Camarines Norte. The RTC granted the petition and recognized the divorce between the parties as valid and effective under Philippine Laws. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. In an Amended Decision, however, the CA revisited its findings and recalled and set aside its previous decision because the divorce herein was consensual in nature, obtained by agreement of the parties, and not by Sakai alone. The Supreme Court held that applying the ruling in Manalo, despite the fact that petitioner participated in the divorce proceedings in Japan, and even if it is assumed that she initiated the same, she must still be allowed to benefit from the exception provided under Paragraph 2 of Article 26. Consequently, since her marriage to Toshiharu Sakai had already been dissolved by virtue of the divorce decree they obtained in Japan, thereby capacitating Toshiharu to remarry, petitioner shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. Nevertheless, petitioner has yet to comply with certain guidelines before the courts may recognize the subject divorce decree and the effects thereof. What remains to be proven is the pertinent Japanese Law on divorce considering that Japanese laws on persons and family relations are not among those matters that Filipino judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a divorce decree obtained by agreement can be enforced in the Philippines – YES. Case was remanded back to the trial court for petitioner to have an opportunity to prove the foreign law.
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The issue before Us has already been resolved in the landmark ruling of Republic v. Manalo, the facts of which fall squarely on point with the facts herein.
Applying the ruling in Manalo, despite the fact that petitioner participated in the divorce proceedings in Japan, and even if it is assumed that she initiated the same, she must still be allowed to benefit from the exception provided under Paragraph 2 of Article 26. Consequently, since her marriage to Toshiharu Sakai had already been dissolved by virtue of the divorce decree they obtained in Japan, thereby capacitating Toshiharu to remarry, petitioner shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
Nevertheless, as similarly held in Manalo, We cannot yet grant petitioner’s Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment for she has yet to comply with certain guidelines before our courts may recognize the subject divorce decree and the effects thereof. Time and again, the Court has held that the starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself.
In the instant case, the Office of the Solicitor General does not dispute the existence of the divorce decree, rendering the same admissible. What remains to be proven, therefore, is the pertinent Japanese Law on divorce considering that Japanese laws on persons and family relations are not among those matters that Filipino judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function.