GR 254484; (November, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 254484 . November 24, 2021
IN RE: PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WITH PRAYER TO CHANGE CIVIL STATUS OF JANEVIC ORTEZA ORDANEZA FROM MARRIED TO SINGLE, JANEVIC ORTEZA ORDANEZA, REPRESENTED BY: RICKY O. ORDANEZA, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Janevic Orteza Ordaneza, a Filipino citizen, married Masayoshi Imura, a Japanese national, on April 7, 2006, in Pasay City. On May 13, 2009, they obtained a divorce decree by agreement pursuant to the Civil Code of Japan, which was registered in Japan on May 15, 2009. On December 8, 2016, Janevic, through her brother Ricky, filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and to change her civil status from “married” to “single” in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kidapawan City. During trial, she presented authenticated documents including the marriage certificate, Japanese divorce notification, and relevant provisions of the Civil Code of Japan. The RTC granted the petition, recognizing the foreign divorce under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code and directing the annotation of the divorce on the marriage certificate. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC Decision, ruling that the petition failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (on venue and necessary parties) and that Janevic did not sufficiently establish that the Japanese divorce decree capacitated her alien spouse to remarry as required by Article 26 of the Family Code.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce should be treated as a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
2. Whether Janevic sufficiently established that her foreign divorce decree complied with the requirements of Article 26 of the Family Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition. On the first issue, the Court ruled that a petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree should not be treated as a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108. Citing Fujiki v. Marinay, the Court held that the recognition of a foreign judgment, such as a divorce decree, is a separate and distinct action from a petition for cancellation or correction of entries. The recognition of the foreign judgment is the principal action, which, once granted, can then serve as the basis for a subsequent petition under Rule 108 to cancel or annotate the civil registry entry. Therefore, the CA erred in dismissing the petition for non-compliance with Rule 108’s venue and party-impleader requirements. The proper venue for the recognition petition is governed by the general rule on venue in ordinary civil actions (Rule 4), and the failure to implead the local civil registrar is not fatal as the State, through the OSG, was duly represented.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Janevic failed to sufficiently establish that the foreign divorce decree complied with Article 26 of the Family Code. Article 26 requires that the divorce must be validly obtained by the alien spouse and must capacitate said spouse to remarry. The party seeking recognition bears the burden of proving the foreign law allowing the alien spouse to remarry. While Janevic submitted authenticated provisions of Japan’s Civil Code on divorce by agreement, the submitted documents did not include the specific provisions (Articles 732 and 733) demonstrating that a divorced Japanese spouse is legally capacitated to remarry. Mere allegations in the petition are not evidence. Consequently, the Court could not conclude that Masayoshi was capacitated to remarry under Japanese law. Thus, the judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree could not be granted under Article 26. The Court set aside the CA Decision but only partially granted Janevic’s petition to the extent of clarifying the proper procedure; the foreign divorce decree itself was not judicially recognized due to insufficient proof of the alien spouse’s capacity to remarry.