G.R. No. 224548, January 23, 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Marlyn and Akira got married in Katsushika-Ku, Tokyo, Japan, as evidenced by a Report of Marriage that was issued by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan. Their relationship, however, eventually turned sour and so they later decided to obtain a divorce by mutual agreement. In 2009, Akira and Marlyn secured a divorce decree in Japan. As she sought recognition of the divorce decree in the Philippines, Marlyn filed with the RTC the Petition for registration and/or recognition of foreign divorce decree and cancellation of entry of marriage that was filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The RTC rendered its Decision denying the petition. For the trial court, the fact that Marlyn also agreed to the divorce and jointly filed for it with Akira barred the application of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. The Supreme Court ruled that applying the same legal considerations and considering the similar factual milieu that attended in Manalo, the present case warrants a reversal of the RTC’s decision. However, under prevailing rules and jurisprudence, the submission of the decree should come with adequate proof. In any case, similar to the remedy that was allowed by the Court in Manalo to resolve such failure, a remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings and reception of evidence on the laws of Japan on divorce is allowed.
FACTS:
On July 29, 1997, Marlyn and Akira got married in Katsushika-Ku, Tokyo, Japan, as evidenced by a Report of Marriage that was issued by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan. The document was registered with both the Office of the Local Civil Registry of Manila and the then National Statistics Office, Civil Registry Division. The union of Marlyn and Akira resulted in the birth of a child, Shin Ito. Their relationship, however, eventually turned sour and so they later decided to obtain a divorce by mutual agreement. In 2009, Akira and Marlyn secured a divorce decree in Japan. The Divorce Certificate was issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines. Marlyn and Akira’s acceptance of the notification of divorce by agreement was supported by an Acceptance Certificate that was issued by the Head of Katsushika-ku in Japan, an English translation of which forms part of the records. As she sought a recognition of the divorce decree in the Philippines, Marlyn filed with the RTC the Petition for registration and/or recognition of foreign divorce decree and cancellation of entry of marriage that was filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The RTC rendered its Decision denying the petition. For the trial court, the fact that Marlyn also agreed to the divorce and jointly filed for it with Akira barred the application of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, which would have otherwise allowed a Filipino spouse to remarry after the alien spouse had validly obtained a divorce. Dissatisfied, Marlyn moved for reconsideration but her motion was denied by the trial court via an Order dated April 26, 2016. This prompted Marlyn to file the present petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a divorce was mutually agreed upon by the spouses is enforceable in the Philippines – YES
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The facts in Manalo are similar to the circumstances in this case. Applying the same legal considerations and considering the similar factual milieu that attended in Manalo, the present case warrants a reversal of the RTC’s decision that refused to recognize the divorce decree that was mutually obtained by Marlyn and her foreigner spouse in Japan solely on the ground that the divorce was jointly initiated by the spouses. The Court finds no reason to deviate from its recent disposition on the issue, as made in Manalo. The dismissal of Marlyn’s petition based on the trial court’s interpretation of Article 26 of the Family Code is erroneous in light of the Court’s disposition in Manalo. The fact that the divorce was by the mutual agreement of Marlyn and Akira was not sufficient ground to reject the decree in this jurisdiction.
While Marlyn and Akira’s divorce decree was not disputed by the OSG, a recognition of the divorce, however, could not extend as a matter of course. Under prevailing rules and jurisprudence, the submission of the decree should come with adequate proof of the foreign law that allows it. The Japanese law on divorce must then be sufficiently proved. Marlyn failed to satisfy the foregoing requirements. The records only include a photocopy of excerpts of The Civil Code of Japan, merely stamped LIBRARY, Japan Information and Culture Center, Embassy of Japan, 2627 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City. This clearly does not constitute sufficient compliance with the rules on proof of Japan’s law on divorce. In any case, similar to the remedy that was allowed by the Court in Manalo to resolve such failure, a remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings and reception of evidence on the laws of Japan on divorce is allowed, as it is hereby ordered by the Court.