Topic Persons and Family Relations
> Marriage
> Requisites of Marriage
Case No. G.R. No. 186571
Date August 11, 2010
Case Name Corpuz vs. Tirol Sto. Tomas and the Solicitor General
Full Case Name GERBERT R. CORPUZ, petitioner
vs.
DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, respondents
Ponente Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion
Nature Petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45 , Rules of Court) from the decision of the Laoag City
Regional Trial Court (RTC)
FACTS
 Petitioner is a former Filipino Citizen who acquired
Canadian citizenship through naturalization;
 Married the Filipina respondent on January 18, 2005
in Pasig City;
 Soon after the wedding, petitioner left for Canada
due to work and other professional commitments;
 Returned to the Philippines (PH) sometime in April
2005 to surprise respondent, only to discover her
having an affair with another man;
 Returned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce ,
which was granted on December 8, 2005 effective
January 8, 2006;
 Two years after, petitioner moved on and found a
new Filipina and with the desire to marry his new
fiancée, petitioner went to the Pasig City Civil
Registry Office (CRO) and registered the divorce
decree granted by the Canadian Court;
 Divorce decree has been registered but petitioner
was informed by an official of the National Statistics
Office (NSO), now the Philippine Statistics Authority,
that the marriage between him and the Filipina
respondent still subsists under PH laws, and the
divorce decree, to be enforceable, must first be
judicially recognized by a competent PH court;
 Petitioner filed a petition for judicial recognition of
foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as
dissolved with the RTC;
 Respondent was summoned and thru a notarized
letter/manifestation offered no opposition to the
petition, and that she could have filed a same case
but was prevented by financial/personal constraints
and requested that she be considered a party-in-
interest with the same prayer as the petitioner;
 Petition was DENIED by the RTC on the ground that
petitioner is not the proper party to institute the
case, as only the Filipino spouse can avail of the
remedy under Par. 2, Art. 26 of the Family Code (FC):
“Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the
Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in
the country where they were solemnized, and valid
there as such, shall also be valid in this country,
except those provided under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5)
and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
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.”
 RTC stated that the decision is consistent with the
legislative intent behind the enactment of the
disputed provision, determined by the Court in
Republic vs. Orbecido III, such that it is “to avoid the
absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains
married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a
divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse”.
 Petitioner’s Arguments (Review on certiorari) :
(a) Asserts similarity of his action with the case of
Orbecido; declaratory relief or determination of
his rights under Par. 2, Art. 26 of the FC;
(b) Said provision of the FC applies as well to the
benefit of the alien spouse;
 (c) RTC’s interpretation is contrary to the essence of
the said provision;
(d) He is a proper party vested with sufficient legal
interest to institute the case; and
(e) OSG and the respondent both supported his
position.
ISSUE
Whether Par. 2, Art. 26 of the FC extends to aliens the
right to petition a Philippine Court for the recognition
of a foreign divorce decree
HELD
1. NO, the alien spouse can claim no right under Par. 2,
Art. 26 of the FC, RTC was correct in limiting the
applicability of the provision for the benefit of the
Filipino spouse.
2. The inapplicability of above provision to aliens is not
a sufficient basis for the RTC to dismiss the petition
brought before it, so the appropriate course of
action is to remand it to the RTC for reconsideration.
RATIONALE (Held No.1)
 Executive Order No. 227 was enacted to amend Art.
26 of the FC to recognize the reality that divorce is a
possibility in marriages between a Filipino and an
alien and this effectively incorporated in to the law
the SC’s holding in Van Dorn vs. Romillo and Pilapil
vs. Ibay-Somera (The marital rights of an alien
spouse can no longer be asserted after a decree of
divorce he/she obtained in a foreign court, because
the foreign divorce already severed the marital
bond between the spouses).
 Essentially, the Par. 2, Art. 26 of the FC provided the
Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or her
marriage to the alien spouse considered as
dissolved, capacitating him or her to remarry. This
is a direct exception to the rule in Article 17 of the
Civil Code providing that the policy against absolute
divorce cannot be subverted by judgments
promulgated by a foreign country, and serves as the
basis for recognizing the dissolution of the marriage
between Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse.
 An action based on Par. 2, Art. 26 of the FC is not
limited to the recognition of the foreign divorce
decree-if the court finds that the decree capacitated
the alien spouse to remarry, the courts can declare
that the Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated to
remarry.
RATIONALE (Held No.2)
 The unavailability of Par. 2, Art. 26 of the FC to aliens
does not necessarily strip such aliens of legal interest
to petition the RTC for the recognition of his or her
foreign divorce decree, because if the foreign divorce
decree is proven, according to our rules of evidence,
as authentic and in conformity with the alien’s
national law, serves as a presumptive evidence of
right in favor of the petitioner, pursuant to the
appropriate Rules of Court providing for the effects of
foreign judgments.
 Direct involvement or being the subject of a foreign
judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the
requisite interest to institute an action before our
Courts for the recognition of the foreign judgment. In
a divorce situation, we have declared, no less, that the
divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided the divorce is
valid according to the alien’s national law.
 The starting point in any recognition of a foreign
divorce judgment is the acknowledgement that our
courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgment
and laws, and for these to be recognize, must be
proven as facts under our rules on evidence,
together with the alien’s applicable national law to
show the effect of judgment on the alien himself and
this can be made in an action instituted specifically for
the purpose or in another action where a party
invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his
claim or defense.
 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 (final judgment no longer
subject to appeal) between the parties.
OTHER MATTERS
 The SC noted the legally improper recording of the
Pasig City CRO of the divorce decree on the
marriage certificate of petitioner and respondent
 based on the mere presentation of the divorce
decree.
 In the absence of a judicial order recognizing the
foreign divorce decree, the Pasig City CRO should
not have recorded and annotated the divorce
decree on the marriage certificate, but in doing so
acted totally out of turn and without authority of
law. For being contrary to law (NSO Circular No. 4,
series of 1982, and the Department of Justice
Opinion No. 181, series of 1982), the registration
of the foreign divorce decree without the required
judicial recognition is patently void and cannot
produce any legal effect.
 The recognition that the RTC may extend to the
Canadian divorce decree does not by itself, under
the Rules of Court, authorize the cancellation of the
entry in the civil registry.
 Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides for the
jurisdictional and procedural requirements that
must be complied with before a judgment,
authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be
annotated in the civil registry. In the case at bar, the
recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be
made in a Rule 108 proceeding, as the object of
judicial proceedings.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition for review

on certiorari, and REVERSE the October 30, 2008
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City,
Branch 11, as well as its February 17, 2009 order.
We order the REMAND of the case to the trial court
for further proceedings in accordance with our
ruling above. Let a copy of this Decision be
furnished the Civil Registrar General. No costs.

SO ORDERED.