G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Petitioner Doreen Grace Parilla, a Filipino citizen, and respondent Michiyuki Koike, a Japanese national, were married on June 14, 2005 in Quezon City, Philippines. Doreen and Michiyuki, pursuant to the laws of Japan, filed for divorce before the Mayor of Ichinomiya City, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. Doreen filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry. The RTC denied Doreen’s petition, ruling that in an action for recognition of foreign divorce decree pursuant to Article 26 of the Family Code, the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce must be proven in accordance with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that considering that the validity of the divorce decree between Doreen and Michiyuki, as well as the existence of pertinent laws of Japan on the matter are essentially factual that calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence presented before the RTC, the issue raised in the instant appeal is obviously a question of fact that is beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition for review. Nonetheless, in the interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, the case was referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action including the reception of evidence to determine and resolve the pertinent factual issues.
FACTS:
Petitioner Doreen Grace Parilla, a Filipino citizen, and respondent Michiyuki Koike (Michiyuki), a Japanese national, were married on June 14, 2005 in Quezon City, Philippines. Their union bore two children, Masato Koike, who was born on January 23, 2006, and Fuka Koike who was born on April 4, 2007. On June 14, 2012, Doreen and Michiyuki, pursuant to the laws of Japan, filed for divorce before the Mayor of Ichinomiya City, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. They were divorced on even date as appearing in the Divorce Certificate and the same was duly recorded in the Official Family Register of Michiyuki Koike. Seeking to have the said Divorce Certificate annotated on her Certificate of Marriage on file with the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, Doreen filed on February 7, 2013 a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry. The RTC denied Doreen’s petition, ruling that in an action for recognition of foreign divorce decree pursuant to Article 26 of the Family Code, the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce must be proven in accordance with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
The RTC ruled that while the divorce documents presented by Doreen were successfully proven to be public or official records of Japan, she nonetheless fell short of proving the national law of her husband, particularly the existence of the law on divorce. The RTC observed that the “The Civil Code of Japan 2000” and “The Civil Code of Japan 2009,” presented were not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan as required by Sections 24 and 25 of the said Rules, adding too that the testimony of Doreen relative to the applicable provisions found therein and its effect on the matrimonial relations was insufficient since she was not presented as a qualified expert witness nor was shown to have, at the very least, a working knowledge of the laws of Japan, particularly those on family relations and divorce. It likewise did not consider the said books as learned treatises pursuant to Section 46, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, since no expert witness on the subject matter was presented and considering further that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign judgments and law. Doreen’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC erred in denying the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce – REFERRED TO THE CA
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
Since our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment, our law on evidence requires that both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven like any other fact. Considering that the validity of the divorce decree between Doreen and Michiyuki, as well as the existence of pertinent laws of Japan on the matter are essentially factual that calls for a re evaluation of the evidence presented before the RTC, the issue raised in the instant appeal is obviously a question of fact that is beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition for review. Well entrenched is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. Nonetheless, despite the procedural restrictions on Rule 45 appeals, the Court may refer the case to the CA under paragraph 2, Section 6 of Rule 56 of the Rules of Court. In the interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, the case was referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action including the reception of evidence to determine and resolve the pertinent factual issues.