G.R. No. 256951 . November 29, 2021
MARIETTA PANGILINAN JOHANSEN, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY, AND OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Marietta Pangilinan Johansen, a Filipino citizen, married Knul Johansen, a Norwegian national, in Norway on June 12, 2015. They separated in 2017, and Knul obtained a Final Decree of Divorce dated November 30, 2018, under Norwegian law. On April 25, 2019, petitioner filed a verified Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 84. She prayed, among others, for the RTC to order the Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) and/or Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to annotate the Decree of Divorce on the Report of Marriage. The RTC initially found the petition sufficient in form and substance, ordered publication and notice, and admitted petitioner’s evidence. The State raised no objections. However, in its Decision dated January 14, 2021, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that the petition, by seeking annotation of the divorce decree on the civil registry, was effectively a proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry), where venue is jurisdictional and lies where the record is found—in this case, with the OCRG or DFA in Pasig or Quezon City, not Malolos City. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC erred in ruling that venue under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is jurisdictional.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the RTC’s dismissal. The Court held that the RTC correctly ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the petition. While the recognition of a foreign divorce decree (governed by Article 26 of the Family Code and proven as a fact under Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court) and the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil registry (governed by Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108) are distinct, they may be joined in a single Rule 108 proceeding. Rule 108 serves as the appropriate adversarial proceeding to establish the fact of the foreign judgment and to seek its annotation. Critically, Rule 108, Section 1 specifies that the petition shall be filed “in the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.” This venue requirement is jurisdictional in special proceedings like Rule 108. Since the record to be corrected (the Report of Marriage) is in the custody of the OCRG (located in Pasig City) or the DFA, the proper venue was the RTC of Pasig City or Quezon City, not Malolos City, Bulacan. The RTC of Malolos City therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The Court also noted that the direct appeal was proper as the issue presented was purely a question of law.