G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
David and Leticia are US citizens who own properties in the USA and in the Philippines. Leticia obtained a decree of divorce from the Superior Court of California in June 2005 wherein the court awarded all the properties in the USA to Leticia. With respect to their properties in the Philippines, Leticia filed a petition for judicial separation of conjugal properties. The RTC rendered judgment which stated among others that the absolute community of property of the parties is declared as dissolved. The net assets of the absolute community of property of the parties in the Philippines were awarded to respondent David A. Noveras only, with the properties in the United States of America remaining in the sole ownership of petitioner Leticia Noveras. One half of each of these properties were awarded to their children. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s Decision by directing the equal division of the Philippine properties between the spouses.The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in recognizing the divorce decree which severed the bond of marriage between the parties. Based on the records, only the divorce decree was presented in evidence but the required certificates to prove its authenticity, as well as the pertinent California law on divorce were not presented. Absent a valid recognition of the divorce decree, it follows that the parties are still legally married in the Philippines. The trial court thus erred in proceeding directly to liquidation. However, the Court granted the petition for judicial separation of absolute community of property after having established that Leticia and David had actually separated for at least one year, pursuant to Article 135 of the Family Code. It likewise affirmed the modification made by the Court of Appeals with respect to the share of the spouses in the absolute community properties in the Philippines, as well as the payment of their children’s presumptive legitimes.
FACTS:
David A. Noveras and Leticia T. Noveras were married on 3 December 1988 in Quezon City, Philippines. They resided in California, United States of America (USA) where they eventually acquired American citizenship. They then begot two children, namely: Jerome T. Noveras, who was born on 4 November 1990 and Jena T. Noveras, born on 2 May 1993. Upon learning that David had an extra-marital affair, Leticia filed a petition for divorce with the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, USA. The California court granted the divorce on 24 June 2005 and judgment was duly entered on 29 June 2005. The California court granted to Leticia the custody of her two children, as well as all the couple’s properties in the USA. On 8 August 2005, Leticia filed a petition for Judicial Separation of Conjugal Property before the RTC of Baler, Aurora. The RTC rendered judgment which stated among others that the absolute community of property of the parties is declared as dissolved. The net assets of the absolute community of property of the parties in the Philippines were awarded to respondent David A. Noveras only, with the properties in the United States of America remaining in the sole ownership of petitioner Leticia Noveras. One half of each of these properties were awarded to their children. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s Decision by directing the equal division of the Philippine properties between the spouses. In the present petition, David insists that the Court of Appeals should have recognized the California Judgment which awarded the Philippine properties to him because said judgment was part of the pleading presented and offered in evidence before the trial court. David argues that allowing Leticia to share in the Philippine properties is tantamount to unjust enrichment in favor of Leticia considering that the latter was already granted all US properties by the California court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the absolute community of property of the spouses should be liquidated by virtue of the divorce decree granted to the petitioner – NO but petition for judicial separation of property was granted based on another article in the FC
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
At the outset, the trial court erred in recognizing the divorce decree which severed the bond of marriage between the parties. The requirements of presenting the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the foreigner must comply with our Rules of Evidence. Specifically, for Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage, a copy of the foreign judgment may be admitted in evidence and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48 (b) of the Rules of Court.
Based on the records, only the divorce decree was presented in evidence. The required certificates to prove its authenticity, as well as the pertinent California law on divorce were not presented. Absent a valid recognition of the divorce decree, it follows that the parties are still legally married in the Philippines. The trial court thus erred in proceeding directly to liquidation.
Separation in fact for one year as a ground to grant a judicial separation of property was not tackled in the trial court’s decision because the trial court erroneously treated the petition as liquidation of the absolute community of properties. The records of this case are replete with evidence that Leticia and David had indeed separated for more than a year and that reconciliation is highly improbable. First, while actual abandonment had not been proven, it is undisputed that the spouses had been living separately since 2003 when David decided to go back to the Philippines to set up his own business. Second, Leticia heard from her friends that David has been cohabiting with Estrellita Martinez, who represented herself as Estrellita Noveras. Having established that Leticia and David had actually separated for at least one year, the petition for judicial separation of absolute community of property should be granted.
Moreover, the Court also affirmed the finding of the Court of Appeals that the Philippine courts did not acquire jurisdiction over the California properties of David and Leticia. Thus, liquidation shall only be limited to the Philippine properties. It likewise affirmed the modification made by the Court of Appeals with respect to the share of the spouses in the absolute community properties in the Philippines, as well as the payment of their children’s presumptive legitimes