GR 213198; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 213198 , July 1, 2019
Genevieve Rosal Arreza, a.k.a. “Genevieve Arreza Toyo,” Petitioner, vs. Tetsushi Toyo, Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, and the Administrator and Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Office, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Genevieve, a Filipino citizen, married Japanese national Tetsushi Toyo in 1991. In 2011, they filed a Notification of Divorce by Agreement in Osaka, Japan, which was duly recorded. In 2012, Genevieve filed a Petition for judicial recognition of this foreign divorce and a declaration of her capacity to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. To prove the relevant Japanese law on divorce, she submitted an English translation of the Civil Code of Japan.
The Regional Trial Court denied her petition. It found that while the divorce decree was proven, Genevieve failed to adequately prove the pertinent provisions of Japanese law allowing divorce by mutual agreement. The trial court specifically held that the submitted copy of the Civil Code of Japan and its English translation were not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan, the Japanese Consul in Manila, or the Department of Foreign Affairs as required by the rules.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in denying the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce due to petitioner’s failure to sufficiently prove the relevant Japanese divorce law.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s decision. The core legal principle is that Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments; they must be pleaded and proved like any other fact. For a foreign divorce decree to be recognized under Article 26 of the Family Code, the alien spouse’s national law allowing the divorce must be proven.
The Court held that Genevieve failed to comply with the mandatory rules for proving foreign law. Under Rules 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court, an official publication or copy of a foreign law must be accompanied by a certification issued by the proper legal custodian of the record and authenticated by the seal of the Philippine embassy, consulate, or a designated foreign service officer. The English translation of the Japanese Civil Code submitted by Genevieve lacked this requisite authentication. The Court rejected her arguments that the document was a self-authenticating “official publication” under Rule 131 or an admissible “learned treatise” under Rule 130, as these exceptions did not apply to the foundational proof of the foreign law itself. Consequently, without competent proof of Japanese law permitting divorce by mutual agreement, the divorce decree could not be recognized, and Genevieve’s capacity to remarry could not be declared.