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

FACTS

Ruby Ng, a Filipino citizen, married Akihiro Sono, a Japanese national, in Quezon City in 2004. They later moved to Japan. When their relationship soured, they secured a “divorce decree by mutual agreement” in Japan on August 31, 2007, which was duly recorded. In 2018, Ruby filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce and Declaration of Capacity to Remarry under Article 26(2) of the Family Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The RTC granted the petition in its January 3, 2019 Decision, which it upheld in its September 6, 2019 Order denying the Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the RTC erred in recognizing a foreign divorce obtained by mere mutual agreement without adversarial proceedings and that Ruby failed to submit an authenticated copy of the pertinent Japanese law on divorce, presenting only an unauthenticated photocopy of portions of the law and its English translation.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court gravely erred in judicially recognizing the foreign divorce decree obtained by mutual agreement and declaring Ruby Ng’s capacity to remarry despite her failure to duly prove the relevant Japanese law on divorce.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through the ponencia, granted the Republic’s Petition. The ruling, as concurred with by Chief Justice Gesmundo, establishes two key points:
1. On the Nature of the Divorce Decree: A judicial proceeding abroad is not required for Article 26(2) of the Family Code to apply. The provision allows for the recognition of a foreign divorce “validly obtained abroad,” which includes divorces by mutual agreement, as previously held in Basa-Egami v. Bersales. The focus of judicial recognition is on the effect of the foreign divorce on the Filipino spouse’s capacity to remarry, not on re-litigating the merits of the divorce decree itself.
2. On Proof of Foreign Law: Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. The party pleading the foreign divorce has the burden to prove both the fact of divorce and the national law of the foreign spouse which allows it. Since Ruby Ng was able to establish the fact of divorce but failed to submit competent evidence of the Japanese law on divorce (i.e., an authenticated copy or one from the official repository), a remand to the trial court for the reception of evidence on the Japanese law on divorce is the proper remedy, instead of an outright dismissal of her petition.