G.R. No. 227605, December 5, 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Petitioner and Minoru Takahasi got married in San Juan, Metro Manila but ten years later, the couple got estranged.The husband refused to give support and even cohabited with another woman. Because of her persistent demand for financial support, her husband suggested they secure a divorce so the Japanese government would give financial assistance to their children. Thus, petitioner agreed to divorce her husband and they jointly applied for divorce before the Office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City. It was granted and they were issued a corresponding Divorce Report. Petitioner then filed with the RTC-Manila an action for recognition of the Divorce Report but the trial court dismissed the petition for failure to present in evidence the Divorce Decree itself. The motion for reconsideration was denied and the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.
The Court ruled that records show that the Divorce Report is what the Government of Japan issued to the petitioner and her husband when they applied for divorce. There was no “divorce judgment” to speak of because the divorce proceeding was not coursed through Japanese courts but through the office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City in Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan. In any event, since the Divorce Report was issued by the office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City, the same is deemed an act of an official body in Japan. By whatever name it is called, the Divorce Report is clearly the equivalent of the “Divorce Decree” in Japan, hence, the best evidence of the fact of divorce obtained by petitioner and her former husband.
However, what petitioner offered in evidence were mere printouts of pertinent portions of the Japanese law on divorce and its English translation. Nevertheless, the Court gave petitioner a chance to prove the Japanese law by remanding the case back to the trial court.
FACTS:
On June 24, 2002, petitioner and Minoru Takahashi got married in San Juan, Metro Manila. Thereafter, they moved to live in Japan where they bore two (2) children, namely: Haruna Takahashi (born on January 5, 2003) and Nanami Takahashi (born on May 8, 2006). Ten (10) years later, the couple got estranged. Petitioner alleged that her husband failed to perform his marital obligations to her. He refused to give support to their two (2) children, and worse, started cohabiting with another woman. Because of her persistent demand for financial support, her husband suggested they secure a divorce so the Japanese government would give financial assistance to their children and send them to school. Believing it was for the good of their children, petitioner agreed to divorce her husband. Consequently, they jointly applied for divorce before the Office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City, Japan. On May 22, 2012, the Office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City granted their application for divorce and issued the corresponding Divorce Report. On October 2, 2012, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court-Manila an action for recognition of the Divorce Report. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to present in evidence the Divorce Decree itself. The trial court held that the Divorce Report and Certificate of All Matters cannot take the place of the Divorce Decree itself which is the best evidence here. Besides, the authenticated Divorce Certificate issued by the Japanese government was not even included in petitioner’s formal offer of evidence aside from the fact that it was a mere photocopy and was not properly identified nay authenticated in open court. Too, on cross, it appeared that petitioner herself was the one who secured the Divorce Decree which fact is not allowed under Philippine laws. The trial court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and prays that the dispositions of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the divorce obtained in Japan may be enforced in the Philippines even if there was no divorce decree but merely a divorce report – YES
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
Republic v. Manalo emphasized that even if it was the Filipino spouse who initiated and obtained the divorce decree, the same may be recognized in the Philippines. Racho v. Tanaka further enunciated that the prohibition on Filipinos from participating in divorce proceedings will not be protecting our own nationals. Verily, therefore, even though it was petitioner herself or jointly with her husband who applied for and obtained the divorce decree in this case, the same may be recognized in our jurisdiction.
Records show that the Divorce Report is what the Government of Japan issued to petitioner and her husband when they applied for divorce. There was no “divorce judgment” to speak of because the divorce proceeding was not coursed through Japanese courts but through the office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City in Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan. In any event, since the Divorce Report was issued by the office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City, the same is deemed an act of an official body in Japan. By whatever name it is called, the Divorce Report is clearly the equivalent of the “Divorce Decree” in Japan, hence, the best evidence of the fact of divorce obtained by petitioner and her former husband.
However, here, what petitioner offered in evidence were mere printouts of pertinent portions of the Japanese law on divorce and its English translation. There was no proof at all that these printouts reflected the existing law on divorce in Japan and its correct English translation. Indeed, our rules require more than a printout from a website to prove a foreign law. At any rate, considering that the fact of divorce was duly proved in this case, the higher interest of substantial justice compels that petitioner be afforded the chance to properly prove the Japanese law on divorce, with the end view that petitioner may be eventually freed from a marriage in which she is the only remaining party. Thus, the case was remanded to the trial court.