G.R. No. 232269 , July 10, 2024
Shela Bacaltos Asilo, Petitioner, vs. Presiding Judge Maria Luisa Lesle G. Gonzales-Betic, Branch 225, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Shela Bacaltos Asilo, a Filipino citizen, married Tommy Wayne Appling, an American citizen, in Hong Kong on November 1, 2002. They lived together in Hong Kong until their separation on August 11, 2011, and eventually obtained a divorce decree in Hong Kong. On February 25, 2014, Shela filed a Petition for Recognition of this Foreign Divorce Decree before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. During trial, she presented evidence including the marriage certificate, the Decree of Absolute Divorce certified by the Philippine Vice-Consul, and Tommy’s subsequent marriage contract with another woman. The RTC denied the petition, ruling that Shela failed to present the divorce law of Hong Kong and that the divorce was obtained by the Filipino spouse (Shela), not the alien spouse, which is required for recognition under Philippine law. Shela’s motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed on procedural grounds: it was the wrong remedy (appeal under Rule 41 should have been filed), it was filed out of time, and the verification was defective. The CA denied her motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari on procedural grounds and whether the foreign divorce decree obtained by the Filipino spouse should be recognized in the Philippines.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the CA correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for being an improper remedy. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is only available when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. An appeal via a notice of appeal under Rule 41 was the proper remedy to question the RTC’s decision in a special proceeding for recognition of a foreign judgment. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Furthermore, the Court ruled on the substantive issue, affirming the RTC’s denial of the petition for recognition. For a foreign divorce decree to be recognized under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the nationality of the alien spouse and the national law of the alien spouse, which must allow divorce, must be specifically alleged and proven. Here, Shela failed to allege Tommy’s nationality as an American citizen in her initiatory pleading and, more critically, failed to present evidence of American law on divorce. The divorce was also obtained in Hong Kong, not under Tommy’s national law. The Court clarified that the ruling in Republic v. Manalo (which allows recognition of a divorce obtained by a Filipino spouse) applies prospectively from its finality on June 30, 2018, and does not apply to this case where the RTC decision became final before that date. The petition for recognition was therefore correctly denied for failure to prove the relevant foreign law.