G.R. No. 248355 , November 23, 2021
MARICEL L. RIVERA, PETITIONER, VS. WOO NAMSUN AND/OR OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OR LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Maricel L. Rivera, a Filipino, married respondent Woo Namsun, a South Korean national, on April 18, 2007, in Quezon City. They lived together in South Korea, but their relationship soured, and petitioner returned to the Philippines in 2008. In 2011, petitioner discovered that respondent had obtained a divorce decree from the Seoul Family Court on June 14, 2011, and subsequently remarried. Seeking to remarry herself, petitioner filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of the Foreign Judgment/Divorce with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted the petition, recognizing the foreign divorce decree and declaring petitioner capacitated to remarry. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC Decision, dismissing the petition for petitioner’s failure to sufficiently prove the fact of divorce and the pertinent South Korean law allowing it according to the Rules of Court. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien spouse recognizing his capacity to obtain divorce were proven in accordance with the Rules of Court.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by Philippine courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court for proving a foreign judgment and a foreign law. The Judgment of Divorce from the Seoul Family Court was a mere copy not properly attested to by its legal custodian. The authentication by a consular official, Chin Hyun Yong, did not satisfy the rule, as his certification did not state he was the legal custodian of the document. Similarly, the copy of the Civil Act of South Korea was not properly authenticated and proved; it lacked a title page, publication details, and a proper attestation by its official custodian or an authorized Philippine diplomatic official. The Court also rejected petitioner’s plea to remand the case for reception of further evidence, as she had already been given full opportunity to present her case and failed to do so. Consequently, the foreign divorce decree could not be recognized, and petitioner remained legally married.