GR 249238 Hernando (Digest)

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 later moved to Japan. On August 31, 2007, the spouses obtained a “divorce decree by mutual agreement” in Japan in accordance with Japanese law. The divorce was duly recorded in Japan and the Divorce Certificate was filed with the City Civil Registry Office of Manila. On May 28, 2018, respondent filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce and Declaration of Capacity to Remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The RTC granted the petition in a Decision dated January 3, 2019. The petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, sought reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, the present petition. The petitioner argues that a “divorce by mutual agreement” is not worthy of recognition in the Philippines, contending that a foreign divorce must be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction and that respondent failed to properly prove the pertinent Japanese divorce law.

ISSUE

Whether a foreign divorce decree obtained by mutual agreement (an extrajudicial or administrative divorce) without court proceedings, as in the case of a Japanese “divorce by agreement” under Article 763 of the Japanese Civil Code, is valid and can be recognized in the Philippines under Article 26 of the Family Code to capacitate the Filipino spouse to remarry.

RULING

The dissenting opinion posits that the foreign divorce must be decided by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction, not merely agreed upon by the spouses, to be recognized in the Philippines. It argues that the “valid divorce” contemplated in Article 26(2) of the Family Code should be interpreted to mean a judicial foreign divorce decree. The opinion emphasizes that the Philippines maintains a public policy against absolute divorce and prohibits annulment of marriages obtained through collusion. Recognizing an extrajudicial divorce obtained by mere mutual consent and registration is viewed as contravening this public policy, as it lacks judicial proceedings, is akin to collusion, and treats marriage with the indifference of a commercial contract. The dissent further argues that the judicial process in the Philippines for recognizing a foreign divorce is stringent and requires a full-blown judicial hearing; thus, it is inconsistent to recognize a divorce decree that was itself obtained without any judicial imprimatur. Consequently, the dissenting opinion votes to dismiss the respondent’s petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry.