You are on page 1of 2

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 in Corpuz 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 Corpuz vs 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 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 underRule 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 2nd 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 39 of 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 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. In Garcia 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

You might also like