G.R. No. 199515, June 25, 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Racho and Seiichi Tanaka (Tanaka) were married on April 20, 2001 in Las Piñas City, Metro Manila. They lived together for nine (9) years in Saitama Prefecture, Japan and did not have any children. Racho alleged that on December 16, 2009, Tanaka filed for divorce and the divorce was granted. She filed a Petition for Judicial Determination and Declaration of Capacity to Marry with the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City. On June 2, 2011, the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City rendered a Decision, finding that Racho failed to prove that Tanaka legally obtained a divorce. It stated that while she was able to prove Tanaka’s national law, the Divorce Certificate was not competent evidence since it was not the divorce decree itself. The Supreme Court ruled that recent jurisprudence, holds that a foreign divorce may be recognized in this jurisdiction as long as it is validly obtained, regardless of who among the spouses initiated the divorce proceedings. Moreover, the national law of the foreign spouse states that the matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce. The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce does not state any qualifications that would restrict the remarriage of any of the parties. The Supreme Court then granted the petition and declared that petitioner is capacitated to remarry.
FACTS:
Racho and Seiichi Tanaka (Tanaka) were married on April 20, 2001 in Las Piñas City, Metro Manila. They lived together for nine (9) years in Saitama Prefecture, Japan and did not have any children. Racho alleged that on December 16, 2009, Tanaka filed for divorce and the divorce was granted. She secured a Divorce Certificate issued by Consul Kenichiro Takayama (Consul Takayama) of the Japanese Consulate in the Philippines and had it authenticated by an authentication officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs. She filed the Divorce Certificate with the Philippine Consulate General in Tokyo, Japan, where she was informed that by reason of certain administrative changes, she was required to return to the Philippines to report the documents for registration and to file the appropriate case for judicial recognition of divorce. She tried to have the Divorce Certificate registered with the Civil Registry of Manila but was refused by the City Registrar since there was no court order recognizing it. When she went to the Department of Foreign Affairs to renew her passport, she was likewise told that she needed the proper court order. She was also informed by the National Statistics Office that her divorce could only be annotated in the Certificate of Marriage if there was a court order capacitating her to remarry.
She went to the Japanese Embassy, as advised by her lawyer, and secured a Japanese Law English Version of the Civil Code of Japan, 2000 Edition. On May 19, 2010, she filed a Petition for Judicial Determination and Declaration of Capacity to Marry with the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City. On June 2, 2011, the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City rendered a Decision, finding that Racho failed to prove that Tanaka legally obtained a divorce. It stated that while she was able to prove Tanaka’s national law, the Divorce Certificate was not competent evidence since it was not the divorce decree itself. Racho filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that under Japanese law, a divorce by agreement becomes effective by oral notification, or by a document signed by both parties and by two (2) or more witnesses. In an Order dated October 3, 2011, the Regional Trial Court denied the Motion, finding that Racho failed to present the notification of divorce and its acceptance. On December 19, 2011, Racho filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court. In its January 18, 2012 Resolution, this Court deferred action on her Petition pending her submission of a duly authenticated acceptance certificate of the notification of divorce.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is sufficient to prove the fact that a divorce between petitioner and respondent was validly obtained by the latter according to his national law – YES
RULING AND DOCTRINE
Upon appeal to this Court, however, petitioner submitted a Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce, certifying that the divorce issued by Susumu Kojima, Mayor of Fukaya City, Saitama Prefecture, has been accepted on December 16, 2009. The seal on the document was authenticated by Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular Service Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan. The probative value of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is a question of fact that would not ordinarily be within this Court’s ambit to resolve. The court records, however, are already sufficient to fully resolve the factual issues. Additionally, the Office of the Solicitor General neither posed any objection to the admission of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce nor argued that the Petition presented questions of fact. In the interest of judicial economy and efficiency, this Court shall resolve this case on its merits.
The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was accompanied by an Authentication issued by Consul Bryan Dexter B. Lao of the Embassy of the Philippines in Tokyo, Japan, certifying that Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular Service Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan was an official in and for Japan. The Authentication further certified that he was authorized to sign the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce and that his signature in it was genuine. Applying Rule 132, Section 24, the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is admissible as evidence of the fact of divorce between petitioner and respondent.
The Regional Trial Court established that according to the national law of Japan, a divorce by agreement “becomes effective by notification.” Considering that the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was duly authenticated, the divorce between petitioner and respondent was validly obtained according to respondent’s national law.
The Office of the Solicitor General, however, posits that divorce by agreement is not the divorce contemplated in Article 26 of the Family Code. Considering that Article 26 states that divorce must be “validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse,” the Office of the Solicitor General posits that only the foreign spouse may initiate divorce proceedings. The Solicitor General’s narrow interpretation of Article 26 disregards any agency on the part of the Filipino spouse. It presumes that the Filipino spouse is incapable of agreeing to the dissolution of the marital bond. It perpetuates the notion that all divorce proceedings are protracted litigations fraught with bitterness and drama. Some marriages can end amicably, without the parties harboring any ill will against each other. The parties could forgo costly court proceedings and opt for, if the national law of the foreign spouse allows it, a more convenient out-of-court divorce process. This ensures amity between the former spouses, a friendly atmosphere for the children and extended families, and less financial burden for the family. In any case, the Solicitor General’s argument has already been resolved in Republic v. Manalo. Recent jurisprudence, therefore, holds that a foreign divorce may be recognized in this jurisdiction as long as it is validly obtained, regardless of who among the spouses initiated the divorce proceedings. The question in this case, therefore, is not who among the spouses initiated the proceedings but rather if the divorce obtained by petitioner and respondent was valid.
The Regional Trial Court found that there were two (2) kinds of divorce in Japan: judicial divorce and divorce by agreement. Petitioner and respondent’s divorce was considered as a divorce by agreement, which is a valid divorce according to Japan’s national law. In this case, respondent’s nationality was not questioned. The Regional Trial Court duly admitted petitioner’s presentation of respondent’s national law. The wording of the provision is absolute. The provision contains no other qualifications that could limit either spouse’s capacity to remarry. Here, the national law of the foreign spouse states that the matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce. The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce does not state any qualifications that would restrict the remarriage of any of the parties. There can be no other interpretation than that the divorce procured by petitioner and respondent is absolute and completely terminates their marital tie. The Court then granted the petition and declared that petitioner is capacitated ro remarry.