G.R. No. 215723 , July 27, 2016
DOREEN GRACE PARILLA MEDINA, a.k.a. “DOREEN GRACE MEDINA KOIKE,” Petitioner, vs. MICHIYUKI KOIKE, THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA, and THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Doreen Grace Parilla Medina, a Filipino citizen, and respondent Michiyuki Koike, a Japanese national, were married in Quezon City in 2005. They subsequently obtained a divorce in Japan on June 14, 2012, as evidenced by a Divorce Certificate recorded in the Japanese Family Register. Doreen filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for judicial recognition of this foreign divorce and a declaration of her capacity to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.
During the hearing, Doreen presented authenticated foreign documents, including the Divorce Certificate and the Family Register. To prove the Japanese law on divorce, she submitted photocopies of the Civil Code of Japan and two books entitled “The Civil Code of Japan 2000” and “The Civil Code of Japan 2009,” along with their English translations. No opposition appeared at the hearing. The RTC, however, denied her petition.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC erred in denying the petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the RTC’s decision. The legal logic centers on the proper mode of proving a foreign law under the Rules of Evidence. For a foreign divorce obtained by an alien spouse to be recognized under Article 26 of the Family Code, the decree itself and the national law of the alien allowing the divorce must be proven as facts. The RTC correctly held that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that the RTC was overly strict in its application of the rules on authentication. Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, which require authentication by the proper Philippine consular officer, apply specifically to copies of official foreign records. These provisions were satisfied by Doreen’s presentation of the duly authenticated Divorce Certificate and Family Register. The foreign law itself—the Japanese Civil Code provisions on divorce—may be proven by other means. The books submitted, while not authenticated as official records, could be considered as evidence of the law’s content, especially in the absence of any opposition or challenge to their accuracy. The Court emphasized that the rules of evidence should be liberally construed to achieve substantial justice. Given the uncontested nature of the petition and the prima facie evidence presented, the RTC should have recognized the divorce decree. Consequently, Doreen, as the Filipino spouse, is capacitated to remarry under the second paragraph of Article 26.