G.R. No. 243646, June 22, 2022
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Jocelyn Asusano Kikuchi, as represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, Edwin E. Asusano, Respondent.

FACTS

In 2015, respondent Jocelyn Asusano Kikuchi (Jocelyn), a Filipino, through her attorney-in-fact, filed a Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). She alleged she was married to Fumio Kikuchi, a Japanese national, in 1993, and that they jointly filed for divorce in 2007 before the City Hall of Sakado City, Saitama Prefecture, Japan, which was accepted. Jocelyn sought recognition of this divorce in the Philippines. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), entered its appearance with a reservation. During trial, Jocelyn presented as evidence an Acceptance Certificate issued by the Mayor of Sakado City, an Authentication from the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, and a photocopy of the Civil Code of Japan in English text. The Republic did not object to these exhibits and manifested it would not present controverting evidence. The RTC granted the petition, recognizing the divorce and declaring Jocelyn capacitated to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. The Republic’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision. The Republic then filed the instant Petition, arguing Jocelyn failed to properly authenticate the Acceptance Certificate and the Embassy Authentication, that the testimony of her attorney-in-fact was hearsay, and that the foreign law was not sufficiently proven.

ISSUE

Did the appellate court err in affirming the trial court’s order judicially recognizing the foreign divorce?

RULING

No, the Petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts.
While the Court acknowledged that exceptions to the rule barring factual review under Rule 45 were applicable, it found that Jocelyn failed to prove the national law of Japan, a critical requirement for recognizing a foreign divorce under Article 26 of the Family Code. The Court held that for such recognition, the party pleading it must prove both the fact of divorce and the foreign law allowing it. As to the fact of divorce, the Court found Jocelyn’s evidence sufficient. The Acceptance Certificate issued by the Mayor of Sakado City was deemed acceptable as proof, analogous to the Divorce Report accepted in Moraña v. Republic, since the divorce was obtained through administrative proceedings, not Japanese courts. The accompanying Authentication from the Philippine Embassy was also deemed sufficient under the ruling in Racho v. Seiichi Tanaka.
However, the Court ruled that Jocelyn failed to prove the pertinent Japanese law on divorce. The photocopy of the Civil Code of Japan in English text was not authenticated by the official having legal custody of the original, nor was it accompanied by a certification from such official, as required by Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Mere presentation of a photocopy, without any testimony or evidence attesting to its authenticity or accuracy as an official publication or copy, is insufficient to prove foreign law. The testimony of Jocelyn’s attorney-in-fact, who had no personal knowledge of Japanese law, could not cure this fatal defect. Consequently, Jocelyn did not discharge her burden of proving that the divorce was validly obtained according to Japanese national law. Therefore, the judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree was improper.