10/2/2014 Article 26 | Philippine Family Law perspectives

http://philippinefamilylawperspectives.wordpress.com/category/marriage/article-26/ 1/6
Philippine judicial recognition of a foreign judgment
affecting the marital status of a Filipino citizen in a
Rule 108 proceeding
In an earlier post on this blog, the Philippine judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree in a Rule 108
proceeding was discussed. The discussions in that post were anchored primarily on the Supreme Court
Decision in Corpuz vs Sto. Tomas (GR 186571, 11 Aug 2010).
Recently in the case of Fujiki vs Marinay (GR 196049, 26 June 2013), the Supreme Court appliedCorpuz vs
Sto. Tomas in reinstating petitioner Fujikis (a Japanese national) petition for judicial recognition before the
RTC of Quezon City of a foreign judgment obtained in Japan by Fujikis wife Marinay (Fujiki & Marinay
married in 2004) declaring Marinays subsequent marriage to Maekara (Maekara & Marinay married in
2008 in Quezon City) void due to its bigamous nature.
The Fujiki vs Marinay case has repercussions on various principles under Philippine Family law.
We have traditionally understood Article 26 of the Family Code (in allowing a judicial recognition by the
Filipino spouse of a foreign divorce decree obtained abroad) as the only express statement in Philippine law
allowing the judicial recognition of a foreign judgment affecting the marital status of a Filipino
citizen. Fujiki has made us understand that Article 26 of the Family Code is merely an expression of a greater
general rule that foreign judgments relating to marital status may be recognized in the Philippines if the
foreign judgment is consistent with Philippine public policy and the State has a sufficient interest in the
recognition of the foreign judgment. The Supreme Court said:
A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects the civil status, condition and legal capacity
of its parties. However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not automatic. To extend the effect of a foreign
judgment in the Philippines, Philippine courts must determine if the foreign judgment is consistent with
domestic public policy and other mandatory laws. Article 15 of the Civil Code provides
that [l]aws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons
are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. This is the rule of lex nationalii in
private international law. Thus, the Philippine State may require, for effectivity in the Philippines,
recognition by Philippine courts of a foreign judgment affecting its citizen, over whom it exercises
personal jurisdiction relating to the status, condition and legal capacity of such citizen.
In other words, although Article 26 of the Family Code is an express legislative statement that a divorce
decree is consistent with Philippine public policy so long as the requisites laid down by jurisprudence (see
eg, Republic v. Orbecido (GR 154380, October 5, 2005) where a spouse must be an alien at the time the
divorce is procured, irregardless of the original citizenship of that spouse at the time of marriage) are
complied with, Article 26 of the Family Code does not preclude the recognition in the Philippines of a
[CIVIL CODE , Art. 17.]
10/2/2014 Article 26 | Philippine Family Law perspectives
http://philippinefamilylawperspectives.wordpress.com/category/marriage/article-26/ 2/6
judgment affecting the status of Filipino citizen, so long as that judgment is consistent with domestic public
policy and other mandatory laws (quote fromFujiki). From the reinstatement in Fujiki vs Marinay(GR
196049, 26 June 2013) of the petition, it may be inferred that, at the very least under Fujikisfacts, a petition
for judicial recognition filed by a foreigner spouse of a foreign judgment declaring the Filipino spouses
subsequent marriage as void, due to its bigamous nature, is consistent with Philippine public policy, even if
that foreign judgment was obtained by the Filipino spouse (inFujiki, the foreign judgment was obtained by the
Filipino spouse). It, however, remains to be seen whether or not such a petition filed in Fujiki would succeed
had it been the Filipino spouse who filed the petition for recognition of the foreign judgment. This is because
while the Supreme Court in Fujikiexplained the public policy repercussions of maintaining a direct action
under Philippine law to declare as null and void a marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule On
Declaration Of Absolute Nullity Of Void Marriages And Annulment Of Voidable Marriages), It did not go
further in explaining the standards by which foreign judgments should be deemed sufficiently or
substantially in accordance with the public policy sought to be protected by a direct action. The Supreme
Court in Fujiki explained the public policy underlying a direct action as follows:
A direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of
marriage under the Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws. Among these safeguards
are the requirement of proving the limited grounds for the dissolution of marriage,
83 support pendente lite of the spouses and children,
the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses,
and the investigation of the public prosecutor to determine collusion. A direct action for
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage is also necessary to prevent circumvention of the
jurisdiction of the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8369), as a
petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry may be filed in the Regional Trial
Court where the corresponding civil registry is located.
Fujiki vs Marinay (GR 196049, 26 June 2013) also affirmed the earlier pronouncement in Juliano-Llave vs
Republic (G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011), which gave a spouse of the first marriage, an interest as an
aggrieved spouse under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC to file a direct action to have his/her other spouses
subsequent bigamous declared null and void.
In Fujiki vs Marinay (GR 196049, 26 June 2013), the Supreme Court citing Corpuz vs Sto. Tomas (GR
186571, 11 Aug 2010) stated what the petitioner seeking recognition of the foreign judgment must prove:
For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the
parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to prove the foreign judgment as a fact
under the Rules of Court. To be more specific, a copy of the foreign judgment may be admitted in
evidence and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of
the Rules of Court. Petitioner may prove the Japanese Family Court judgment through (1) an official
[FAMILY CODE , Art. 35-
67.] [quoti ng ARTICLE 84 FAMILY CODE; Cf. RULES OF COURT,
Rul e 61] [quoti ng ARTICLE 50 FAMILY
CODE]
[quoti ng ARTICLE 48 FAMILY CODE; quoti ng s 9 A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC]
10/2/2014 Article 26 | Philippine Family Law perspectives
http://philippinefamilylawperspectives.wordpress.com/category/marriage/article-26/ 3/6
publication or (2) a certification or copy attested by the officer who has custody of the judgment. If the
office which has custody is in a foreign country such as Japan, the certification may be made by the
proper diplomatic or consular officer of the Philippine foreign service in Japan and authenticated by the
seal of office.
xxx
Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of fact of the judgment, it may be made in
a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court. Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that [a] special proceeding is a remedy by
which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify
facts of a persons life which are recorded by the State pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753.
These are facts of public consequence such as birth, death or marriage, which the State has an interest in
recording. As noted by the Solicitor General, in Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas this Court declared that [t]he
recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of
special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or
right of a party or a particular fact.
xxx
In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are incompetent to substitute their judgment
on how a case was decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the family rights and duties, or on
the status, condition and legal capacity of the foreign citizen who is a party to the foreign judgment.
Thus, Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in
the Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage involving a citizen of a foreign
country, Philippine courts only decide whether to extend its effect to the Filipino party, under the rule
of lex nationalii expressed in Article 15 of the Civil Code.
For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent
with an overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an
extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. If there is either inconsistency with public policy nor
adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default, recognize the foreign
judgment as part of the comity of nations. Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states that the
foreign judgment is already presumptive evidence of a right between the parties. Upon recognition of
the foreign judgment, this right becomes conclusive and the judgment serves as the basis for the
10/2/2014 Article 26 | Philippine Family Law perspectives
http://philippinefamilylawperspectives.wordpress.com/category/marriage/article-26/ 4/6
Leave a comment
JULY 2 0, 2 01 3 6:01 PM
correction or cancellation of entry in the civil registry. The recognition of the foreign judgment nullifying
a bigamous marriage is a subsequent event that establishes a new status, right and fact that needs to be
reflected in the civil registry. Otherwise, there will be an inconsistency between the recognition of the
effectivity of the foreign judgment and the public records in the Philippines.
Notwithstanding the lack of an express statement in Fujiki vs Marinay (GR 196049, 26 June 2013), it is
submitted that foreign law must also be proven in the petition for judicial recognition of the foreign
judgment, for how else can one determine whether or not the foreign court had jurisdiction, or that the
foreign procedure is consistent with our public policy, or that the effects of the foreign decision is to
capacitate the parties to remarry (see whereCorpuz vs Sto. Tomas (GR 186571, 11 Aug 2010) citing Garcia vs
Recio (G.R. No. 138322, 2 October 2001) where conformity to the foreign law allowing it must be
demonstrated)? In Fujiki, the Supreme Court alluded to the need to prove foreign law, when it said that
Philippine courts cannot presume to know the foreign laws under which the foreign judgment was
rendered.

- Atty. Alex Andrew P. Icao
Filed under Article 26,foreign divorce decree; judicial recognition, Marriage
Philippine judicial recognition of a foreign divorce
decree in a Rule 108 proceeding
Although a petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce is filed before the Regional Trial Court, and
the latter issues a judgment recognizing the foreign divorce, the Supreme Court held inCorpuz vs Sto.
Tomas (GR 186571, 11 Aug 2010)that the recognition that the RTC may extend to the divorce decree does
not, by itself, authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil registry. A petition for recognition of a
foreign judgment is not the proper proceeding, contemplated under the Rules of Court, for the cancellation
of entries in the civil registry.
If a marriage recorded in the civil registry is sought to be cancelled by virtue of the divorce decree obtained
abroad, the Supreme Court said in Corpuzvs Sto. Tomas that a petition for cancellation or correction of
entry under Rule 108 is the special remedial proceeding by which entries in the civil registry may be
judicially cancelled or corrected. The Supreme Court said that under Rule 108 the verified petition must be
filed with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located; that the civil registrar
10/2/2014 Article 26 | Philippine Family Law perspectives
http://philippinefamilylawperspectives.wordpress.com/category/marriage/article-26/ 5/6
and all persons who have or claim any interest must be made parties to the proceedings; and that the time
and place for hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation. The Supreme Court then
clarified that this ruling should not be construed as requiring two separate proceedings for the registration
of a foreign divorce decree in the civil registry one for recognition of the foreign decree and another
specifically for cancellation of the entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The recognition of the
foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings
(such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or right of a party or a
particular fact.Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the appropriate adversarial
proceeding by which the applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured and tested in terms of
jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
The foreigner spouses right to obtain a Philippine judicial recognition of a foreign divorce cannot be based
upon the 2 paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code (the codal provision states Where a marriage
between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.), because only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code; the alien spouse can claim no right under this
provision: Corpuz vs Sto. Tomas (GR 186571, 11 Aug 2010). However, the Supreme Court in Corpuz said
that the alien spouse still had the right to obtain a judicial recognition of the foreign divorce because [t]he
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 [the
foreigner spouse], pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39of the Rules of Court which provides for the effect of
foreign judgments. Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders.The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal
of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive
upon the title of the thing; and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
The Supreme Court stated in Corpuz that [t]he starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce
judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws.
This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on
evidence, together with the aliens applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien
himself or herself, the Supreme Court cited Section 24 Rule 132 of the Rules of Court as the proper means of
proving the foreign divorce decree and the foreigners national law. According to the Supreme Court
in Corpuz, Section 24 Rule 132 requires proof, either by (1) official publications or (2) copies attested by the
officer having legal custody of the documents. If the copies of official records are not kept in the
nd
10/2/2014 Article 26 | Philippine Family Law perspectives
http://philippinefamilylawperspectives.wordpress.com/category/marriage/article-26/ 6/6
2 Comments
Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular
officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b)
authenticated by the seal of his office.
If copies of the foreign divorce decree or the foreign law, duly authenticated to by the foreign governments
foreign ministry and the Philippine consular officer, do not contain any express attestation by the custodian
that the copies are correct copies of the original in custody, should the copies be admitted by the RTC as
proof of the foreign divorce decree or the foreign law? First, the objection to the admissibility of the copies
must be promptly raised at the time of the offer of evidence, otherwise the trial court may admit the
evidence. InGarcia vs Recio (G.R. No. 138322, 2 October 2001), the Supreme Court said that when the
divorce decree of May 18, 1989 was submitted in evidence, counsel for petitioner objected, not to its
admissibility, but only to the fact that it had not been registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan
City. The trial court ruled that it was admissible, subject to petitioners qualification. Hence, it was
admitted in evidence and accorded weight by the judge. Indeed, petitioners failure to object properly
rendered the divorce decree admissible as a written act of the Family Court of Sydney, Australia. Second,
and although there is no case expressly dealing with the admissibility of twice authenticated divorce decrees
that do not contain any express attestation by the custodian that the copies are correct copies of the original
in custody, the Supreme Court has held in Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort Inc vs Harper (GR 189998,
29 August 2012), where the admissibility of extracts from the registry of births and a marriage certificate
from Norway was at issue, that these twice authenticated documents substantially met the requirements of
Section 24 and Section 25 of Rule 132 as a condition for their admission as evidence in default of a
showing by petitioner that the authentication process was tainted with bad faith.
Consequently, the objective of ensuring the authenticity of the documents prior to their admission as
evidence was substantially achieved. (emphasis supplied) The Supreme Court in Makati Shangri-La Hotel
and Resort Inc vs Harper agreed with the Court of Appeals observation that [a]s the CA observed,
compliance with the requirements on attestation and authentication of the documents had not been easy;
they had to contend with many difficulties (such as the distance of Oslo, their place of residence, from
Stockholm, Sweden, where the Philippine Consulate had its office; the volume of transactions in the offices
concerned; and the safe transmission of the documents to the Philippines).
If the divorce is proven merely by means of a divorce certificate issued by the foreign countrys consul
general stationed in the Philippines attesting that the parties are divorced, the Court of Appeals in Lawan vs
City Civil Registrar-General (CA G.R. CV No. 96110, 17 August 2012) has barred the divorce certificate as
proof of the divorce because [t]he actual contents also of the order granting the divorce decree were not
even stated in the divorce certificate thus it cannot be determined if the decree complies with the Japanese
law under which the decree was issued.
- Atty. Alex Andrew P. Icao
Filed under Article 26,foreign divorce decree; judicial recognition, Marriage