GR 253527; (October, 2024) (Digest)
G.R. No. 253527, October 21, 2024
ROSARY KRISTINE I. ANIDO, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Rosary Kristine I. Anido, a Filipino, married Enrique Martin Gomez Pomar, a Peruvian citizen, in New Jersey, USA, on May 17, 2012. The marriage turned sour, and Enrique filed for divorce before the Fayette County Circuit Court of Kentucky, USA, which granted a decree of absolute divorce on November 18, 2015. Anido subsequently filed a Petition for Enforcement of a Foreign Decree of Divorce and Correction of Record in the Civil Registry with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The RTC granted the petition, recognizing the foreign divorce decree and directing its annotation on the marriage certificate. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC, dismissing the petition for Anido’s failure to prove the foreign law allowing the divorce in the manner required by the Rules of Court. Anido filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that the Petition for Enforcement should be dismissed for failure of Anido to prove, in accordance with the Rules of Court, the applicable foreign law allowing Enrique to validly obtain a divorce decree from the Kentucky Court and to remarry thereafter.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and REINSTATED the Order of the Regional Trial Court recognizing the foreign divorce decree. The Court held that Anido sufficiently proved the pertinent foreign laws. The foreign divorce decree, duly authenticated by the Philippine Embassy, was presented. For the national law of the alien spouse (Peruvian law), Anido submitted a copy of the Peru Civil Code with a notarized Certificate of Translation, which the Court found constituted competent evidence under Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, as it was an official publication. For the law of the forum (Kentucky law), the Court took judicial notice of the relevant Kentucky divorce statutes, which are accessible on the Supreme Court’s website pursuant to its administrative circulars, thereby dispensing with the need for further proof. The Court found that these laws capacitated Enrique to remarry. The OSG was not deprived of due process as it received notice of the hearing and was represented by the deputized Office of the City Prosecutor.