G.R. No. 195432, August 27, 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On 16 September 2001, petitioner married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese National, in a civil wedding solemnized at Candaba, Pampanga. Yuichiro Kobayashi sought in Japan, and was validly granted under Japanese laws, a divorce in respect of his marriage with Petitioner. Said Divorce Certificate was duly registered with the Office of the Civil Registry of Manila. Believing in good faith that said divorce capacitated her to remarry and that by such she reverted to her single status, petitioner married Masatomi Y. Ando on 13 September 2005 in a civil wedding celebrated in Sta. Ana, Pampanga. In the meantime, Yuichiro Kobayashi married Ryo Miken on 27 December 2005. Recently, petitioner applied for the renewal of her Philippine passport to indicate her surname with her husband Masatomi Y. Ando but she was told at the Department of Foreign Affairs that the same cannot be issued to her until she can prove by competent court decision that her marriage with her said husband Masatomi Y. Ando is valid until otherwise declared. Petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for Declaratory Relief. At first, the petition was denied for want of cause and action, as well as jurisdiction but the motion for reconsideration was granted and the case was endorsed and raffled to the Family Court. However, the trial court dismissed the Petition anew on the ground that petitioner had no cause of action. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner availed of wrong remedy because she should have, at first, appealed the decision of the DFA to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and with regard to her prayer for her second marriage to be acknowledged, petitioner should have filed, instead, a petition for the judicial recognition of her foreign divorce from her first husband. As held by the RTC, there appears to be insufficient proof or evidence presented on record of both the national law of her first husband, Kobayashi, and of the validity of the divorce decree under that national law. Hence, any declaration as to the validity of the divorce can only be made upon her complete submission of evidence proving the divorce decree and the national law of her alien spouse, in an action instituted in the proper forum.
FACTS:
On 16 September 2001, petitioner married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese National, in a civil wedding solemnized at Candaba, Pampanga. On 16 September 2004, Yuichiro Kobayashi sought in Japan, and was validly granted under Japanese laws, a divorce in respect of his marriage with Petitioner. Said Divorce Certificate was duly registered with the Office of the Civil Registry of Manila. Believing in good faith that said divorce capacitated her to remarry and that by such she reverted to her single status, petitioner married Masatomi Y. Ando on 13 September 2005 in a civil wedding celebrated in Sta. Ana, Pampanga. In the meantime, Yuichiro Kobayashi married Ryo Miken on 27 December 2005.
Recently, petitioner applied for the renewal of her Philippine passport to indicate her surname with her husband Masatomi Y. Ando but she was told at the Department of Foreign Affairs that the same cannot be issued to her until she can prove by competent court decision that her marriage with her said husband Masatomi Y. Ando is valid until otherwise declared.
On 29 October 2010, petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for Declaratory Relief, which was later raffled off to Branch 46. She impleaded the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) as respondent and prayed for the declaration as valid and subsisting the marriage between petitioner Edelina T. Ando and her husband Masatomi Y. Ando, declaration of petitioner as entitled to the issuance of a Philippine Passport under the name “Edelina Ando y Tungol”; and for the Department of Foreign Affairs to honor petitioner’s marriage to her husband Masatomi Y. Ando and to issue a Philippine Passport to petitioner under the name ‘Edelina Ando y Tungol”. In an Order dismissing the Petition for want of cause and action, as well as jurisdiction, the RTC held there is no showing that petitioner herein complied with the requirements set forth in Art. 13 of the Family Code — that is obtaining a judicial recognition of the foreign decree of absolute divorce in our country.
The RTC granted her motion for reconsideration and the case was endorsed and raffled to the Family Court. However, the trial court dismissed the Petition anew on the ground that petitioner had no cause of action.The motion for reconsideration of the petitioner was denied by the Court considering that neither the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) nor respondent was furnished with copies of the motion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner can pray in a Petition for Declaratory Relief that her second marriage be recognized – NO
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
First, with respect to her prayer to compel the DFA to issue her passport, petitioner incorrectly filed a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC. She should have first appealed before the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, since her ultimate entreaty was to question the DFA’s refusal to issue a passport to her under her second husband’s name. Second, with respect to her prayer for the recognition of her second marriage as valid, petitioner should have filed, instead, a petition for the judicial recognition of her foreign divorce from her first husband.
While it has been ruled that a petition for the authority to remarry filed before a trial court actually constitutes a petition for declaratory relief, we are still unable to grant the prayer of petitioner. As held by the RTC, there appears to be insufficient proof or evidence presented on record of both the national law of her first husband, Kobayashi, and of the validity of the divorce decree under that national law. Hence, any declaration as to the validity of the divorce can only be made upon her complete submission of evidence proving the divorce decree and the national law of her alien spouse, in an action instituted in the proper forum.