G.R. No. 223628 , March 4, 2020
EDNA S. KONDO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LUZVIMINDA S. PINEDA, PETITIONER, V. CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Edna S. Kondo, a Filipina, and Katsuhiro Kondo, a Japanese national, were married in Japan on March 15, 1991. They obtained a divorce by agreement in Japan on July 3, 2000. On November 7, 2012, Edna, through her attorney-in-fact, filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, invoking Article 26(2) of the Family Code. She sought to have the divorce decree annotated on her marriage certificate. During trial, her attorney-in-fact presented evidence including the Report of Divorce and Katsuhiro’s Family Register. The petitioner withdrew an offer to present an authenticated English translation of the relevant Japanese Civil Code provisions on divorce by agreement. The RTC, by Order dated December 3, 2013, allowed the reception of additional evidence, but the petitioner did not present further evidence. The RTC denied the petition in its Decision dated April 10, 2014, reasoning that Article 26(2) requires the divorce to be obtained by the alien spouse, not by mutual agreement, and that the presented evidence did not show the alien spouse was capacitated to remarry. Petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging newly discovered evidence—a copy of Katsuhiro’s Report of Divorce indicating he had remarried—and requested time to secure a duly authenticated copy. The RTC denied the motion for failure to file an Affidavit of Merit as required by the Rules and because the proffered document was unauthenticated. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, ruling the evidence was not newly discoverable and that technical rules were not followed. The petitioner now appeals to the Supreme Court, seeking a remand to the trial court for reception of additional evidence, citing logistical and financial difficulties for her earlier failures.

ISSUE

Should the case be remanded to the trial court for reception of additional evidence?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded the case to the trial court. The Court held that while the second Report of Divorce did not qualify as newly discovered evidence under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court (as it existed during trial and could have been discovered with reasonable diligence), the paramount interest at stake is the petitioner’s marital status. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure should be liberally construed to secure a just determination of every action, especially in cases involving a person’s status. Citing precedents, the Court noted that a petition for recognition of foreign divorce is never barred by res judicata, and denying remand would only force the petitioner to refile, clogging court dockets. The Court exercised its equity jurisdiction to remand the case to the RTC, Branch 4, Manila, for the specific purpose of allowing the petitioner to present the pertinent Japanese law on divorce and the document proving her former spouse’s capacity to remarry, to fully resolve the issue under Article 26(2) of the Family Code.