CORPUZ vs. STO. TOMAS and The SOLICITOR GENERAL G.R. No.

186571 August 11,

2010
FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking a direct appeal from the decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City. Petitioner Gerbert R. Corpus is a naturalized Canadian
citizen who married respondent Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas but subsequently left for Canada due
to work and other professional commitments. When he returned to the Philippines, he discovered
that Sto. Tomas was already romantically involved with another man. This brought about the
filing of a petition for divorce by Corpuz in Canada which was eventually granted by the Court
Justice of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. A month later, the divorce decree took effect. Two years
later, Corpuz has fallen in love with another Filipina and wished to marry her. He went to Civil
Registry Office of Pasig City to register the Canadian divorce decree of his marriage certificate
with Sto. Tomas. However, despite the registration, an official of National Statistics Office
informed Corpuz that the former marriage still subsists under the Philippine law until there has
been a judicial recognition of the Canadian divorce by a competent judicial court in view of NSO
Circular No. 4, series of 1982. Consequently, he filed a petition for judicial recognition of
foreign divorce and/or declaration of dissolution of marriage with the RTC. However, the RTC
denied the petition reasoning out that Corpuz cannot institute the action for judicial recognition
of the foreign divorce decree because he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It was provided
further that Sto. Tomas was the proper party who can institute an action under the principle of
Article 26 of the Family Code which capacitates a Filipino citizen to remarry in case the alien
spouse obtains a foreign divorce decree.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code grants aliens like Corpuz
the right to institute a petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
HELD:
Petition GRANTED. RTC Decision REVERSED.
The foreign divorce decree is presumptive evidence of a right that clothes the party with
legal interest to petition for its recognition in this jurisdiction
We qualify our above conclusion i.e., that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
Code bestows no rights in favor of aliens with the complementary statement that this
conclusion is not sufficient basis to dismiss Gerberts petition before the RTC.In other
words, the unavailability of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens
does not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition
of his foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and
conformity with the aliens national law have been duly proven according to our rules of
evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section
48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides for the effect of foreign judgments.
A remand, at the same time, will allow other interested parties to oppose the foreign judgment
and overcome a petitioners presumptive evidence of a right by proving want of jurisdiction,
want of notice to a party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Needless to state, every
precaution must be taken to ensure conformity with our laws before a recognition is made, as the
foreign judgment, once recognized, shall have the effect of res judicata between the parties, as
provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.