G.R. No. 249238, February 27, 2024
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. RUBY CUEVAS NG A.K.A. RUBY NG SONO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Ruby Cuevas Ng, a Filipino citizen, married Akihiro Sono, a Japanese national, on December 8, 2004, in Quezon City. They had one child and later moved to Japan. Their relationship soured, and they obtained a “divorce decree by mutual agreement” in Japan on August 31, 2007. This was evidenced by a Divorce Certificate from the Embassy of Japan, with corresponding Authentication and Acceptance Certificates from the Department of Foreign Affairs, and a Certification from the City Civil Registry Office of Manila. The divorce was also recorded in Japan’s Civil Registry, as shown by the Family Registry of Japan with an English translation. On May 28, 2018, Ng filed a Petition for judicial recognition of this foreign divorce and a declaration of capacity to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The RTC granted the petition on January 3, 2019. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, moved for reconsideration, arguing that a divorce obtained by mere mutual agreement without a court proceeding is not recognizable and that Ng failed to prove the Japanese divorce law. The RTC denied the motion, prompting the Republic to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in judicially recognizing a foreign divorce decree obtained by mutual agreement between the spouses without an adversarial proceeding before a foreign court.
2. Whether Ng sufficiently proved the divorce decree and the Japanese law on divorce.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition, affirming the RTC’s decision. The Court held that:
1. Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code applies to foreign divorces validly obtained abroad that capacitate the alien spouse to remarry, regardless of whether the divorce was obtained through a judicial proceeding or by mutual agreement. Citing Republic v. Manalo, the Court clarified that the provision applies where a valid divorce is obtained, capacitating the parties to remarry, without regard to which spouse initiated it. The Court explicitly stated that Article 26(2) applies to divorces obtained jointly by the Filipino and foreign spouse. The fact that the divorce was by mutual agreement under Japanese law does not bar its recognition in the Philippines.
2. Ng sufficiently proved the foreign divorce decree and the pertinent Japanese law. The Divorce Certificate, Authentication Certificate, Certificate of Acceptance, Certification from the Manila Civil Registry, and the authenticated Family Registry of Japan with its English translation constituted ample proof of the divorce decree. Regarding proof of Japanese law, the Court, citing Nullada v. Civil Registrar of Manila, held that the failure to present an authenticated copy of the foreign law is not fatal. The Japanese law on divorce (which allows divorce by mutual agreement) was sufficiently established through the official documents presented, which on their face indicated the divorce was effected in accordance with Japanese law. The Court emphasized that the provision in the Rules of Court requiring proof of foreign law is not absolute, and the court may consider other evidence on record.