GR 258130; (April, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 258130 , April 17, 2023
Regie David Tsutsumi, Petitioner, vs. Republic of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Regie David Tsutsumi, a Filipino, and Ayahiro Tsutsumi, a Japanese national, were married in Tarlac City, Philippines, on August 17, 1995. On April 11, 2016, they mutually filed for divorce in Japan. A Divorce Certificate was issued by the Embassy of Japan and authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), which was then recorded in the Civil Registry of Manila. Petitioner filed a Petition for Recognition of Foreign Divorce before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac City. The RTC granted the petition, recognizing the divorce and declaring petitioner with the legal capacity to remarry. The Republic appealed, arguing that petitioner failed to properly prove the foreign divorce decree and the relevant Japanese law as required under the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, holding that the Divorce Certificate was not properly authenticated by the correct Philippine diplomatic officer stationed in Japan, and that the presented excerpts of Japanese law were insufficient to prove the legal effects of the divorce by mutual agreement.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s recognition of the foreign divorce obtained by petitioner and her Japanese spouse.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petitioner substantially complied with the procedural requirements for proving the foreign divorce. The Divorce Certificate and the Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce, both duly authenticated by the DFA, were sufficient to establish the fact of divorce. The Court emphasized that lower courts should approach such petitions with a view to dispensing substantial justice, as marriage, being a mutual commitment, cannot be productive where one spouse is freed from the bond and the other remains bound. The Court found that the petitioner also presented an authenticated English translation of the relevant provisions of the Japanese Civil Code ( Act No. 89 of 1896) concerning divorce by mutual agreement, which was authenticated by a Vice Consul of the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan. This proved the relevant Japanese law allowing the divorce obtained by the parties. Consequently, under Paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to remarry following a divorce validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC decision recognizing the foreign divorce and declaring petitioner with the legal capacity to remarry.