G.R. No. 223628, March 4, 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Edna S. Kondo, a Filipina and Katsuhiro Kondo, a Japanese national were married in Japan but after nine years of marriage, they obtained a divorce by agreement in Japan for which they were issued a Report of Divorce. Edna, through her sister and attorney-in-fact, filed a petition for judicial recognition of the divorce of decree. The RTC denied the action on the ground that (1) it was not obtained by an alien spouse but obtained through mutual agreement and (2) there was no evidence presented that the husband had capacity to remarry by virtue of the divorce decree. Edna filed a Motion for New Trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence as she obtained a copy of Katsuhiro’s Report of Divorce, indicating that he had already married a certain Tsukiko Umegaki. However, the trial court denied Edna’s Motion for New Trial. When elevated to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court ruled that the Divorce Report was not a newly discovered evidence. However, the Court added that considering the recent jurisprudence on mixed marriages under Article 26 of the Family Code, procedural rules should be relaxed. Hence, the Supreme Court granted the petition to set aside the Order of the RTC and thus, it allowed Edna another chance to prove the capacity to remarry of her former husband.
FACTS:
On March 15, 1991, petitioner Edna S. Kondo and Katsuhiro Kondo, a Filipina and Japanese national, respectively, were married before the Head of Hirano Ward in Japan. But on July 3, 2000, after around nine (9) years of marriage, they obtained a divorce by agreement in Japan for which they were issued a Report of Divorce. On November 7, 2012, Edna, through her sister and Attorney-in-Fact Luzviminda S. Pineda, filed a petition for judicial recognition of the divorce decree, citing Article 26 (2) of the Family Code. The trial court denied the petition and noted that under Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, the foreign divorce should have been obtained by the alien spouse, not by mutual agreement, as here. Moreover, the provisions of the Japanese Civil Code, as presented to the trial court, did not show that Katsuhiro was allowed to remarry upon obtaining a divorce. On May 20, 2014, Edna filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging she had newly discovered evidence which could alter the result of the case — a copy of Katsuhiro’s Report of Divorce, allegedly indicating that he had already married a certain Tsukiko Umegaki. The trial court denied Edna’s Motion for New Trial. Aggrieved, Edna assailed the trial court’s Resolution before the Court of Appeals but the Court of Appeals affirmed the resolution of the trial court. Hence, she filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner-wife should be granted the opportunitiy to present evidence of husband’s capacity to remarry – YES. REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT.
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The Court ruled that the Divorce Report was not a newly discovered evidence. Edna herself did not deny, as she in fact admitted that the second Divorce Report was already existing during the proceedings below. To be sure, Katsuhiro allegedly married Tsukiko as early as May 30, 2001. If this were true, she should have promptly secured and presented a copy of the document during the trial. The Divorce Report could not therefore be deemed as newly discovered evidence. More so, since the trial court gave her an additional opportunity to present evidence through its Order dated December 3, 2013, but she still failed to present the second Divorce Report.
However, the Court added that considering the recent jurisprudence on mixed marriages under Article 26 of the Family Code, the trial court should have been more circumspect in strictly adhering to procedural rules. For these rules are meant to facilitate administration of fairness and may be relaxed when a rigid application hinders substantial justice.
The Court cited the cases of Republic vs. Manalo, Racho vs. Tanaka, Moraña vs. Republic of the Philippines, and Garcia vs. Recio to note that it has time and again granted liberality in cases involving the recognition of foreign decrees to Filipinos in mixed marriages and free them from a marriage in which they are the sole remaining party. In the aforementioned cases, the Court has emphasized that procedural rules are designed to secure and not override substantial justice, especially here where what is involved is a matter affecting lives of families. The Court saw no reason why the same treatment should not be applied in this case so it relaxed the procedural rules and granted the petition for Edna to present evidence.