Republic of the
Supreme Court
GERBERT R. CORPUZ,
Petitioner, -
versus - DAISYLYN
Respondents.
-- - |
G.R. No. 186571
Present:
CARPIO
MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, *ABAD, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: August 11, 2010 |
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
Before the Court is a direct appeal from the
decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Petitioner Gerbert R. Corpuz was a former Filipino
citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization on
Two years after the divorce, Gerbert has moved on
and has found another Filipina to love.
Desirous of marrying his new Filipina fiancée in the
Accordingly, Gerbert
filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration
of marriage as dissolved (petition)
with the RTC. Although summoned,
Daisylyn did not file any responsive pleading but submitted instead a notarized
letter/manifestation to the trial court.
She offered no opposition to Gerbert’s petition and, in fact, alleged
her desire to file a similar case herself but was prevented by financial and
personal circumstances. She, thus,
requested that she be considered as a party-in-interest with a similar prayer
to Gerbert’s.
In its
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized
outside the
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.
This conclusion, the RTC stated, is consistent with
the legislative intent behind the enactment of the second paragraph of Article
26 of the Family Code, as determined by the Court in Republic v. Orbecido III;[10]
the provision was enacted 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.”[11]
THE
PETITION
From
the RTC’s ruling,[12]
Gerbert filed the present petition.[13]
Gerbert asserts that his petition before the RTC is
essentially for declaratory relief, similar to that filed in Orbecido; he, thus, similarly asks for a determination of his rights under
the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. Taking into account the
rationale behind the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, he
contends that the provision applies as well to the benefit of the alien
spouse. He claims that the RTC ruling
unduly stretched the doctrine in Orbecido
by limiting the standing to file the petition only to the Filipino spouse – an
interpretation he claims to be contrary to the essence of the second paragraph
of Article 26 of the Family Code. He
considers himself as a proper party, vested with sufficient legal interest, to
institute the case, as there is a possibility that he might be prosecuted for
bigamy if he marries his Filipina fiancée in the Philippines since two marriage
certificates, involving him, would be on file with the Civil Registry Office.
The Office of the Solicitor General and Daisylyn, in their respective Comments,[14]
both support Gerbert’s position.
Essentially,
the petition raises the issue of whether the second paragraph of Article 26
of the Family Code extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this
jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
THE
COURT’S RULING
The alien
spouse can claim no right under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the
Family Code as the substantive right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino
spouse
The
resolution of the issue requires a review of the legislative history and intent
behind the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.
The Family Code recognizes only two types of
defective marriages – void[15]
and voidable[16]
marriages. In both cases, the basis for
the judicial
declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of the marriage exists before or at the time of the marriage.
Divorce, on the other hand, contemplates the dissolution of the lawful
union for cause arising after the
marriage.[17]
Our family laws do not recognize absolute divorce between Filipino citizens.[18]
Recognizing the reality that divorce is a possibility
in marriages between a Filipino and an alien, President Corazon C. Aquino, in
the exercise of her legislative powers under the Freedom Constitution,[19]
enacted Executive Order No. (EO) 227,
amending Article 26 of the Family Code to its present wording, as follows:
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized
outside the
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.
Through the second paragraph of Article 26 of the
Family Code, EO 227 effectively incorporated into the law this Court’s holding
in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.[20]
and Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera.[21] In both cases, the Court refused to
acknowledge the alien spouse’s assertion of marital rights after a foreign
court’s divorce decree between the alien and the Filipino. The Court, thus, recognized that the foreign
divorce had already severed the marital bond between the spouses. The Court reasoned in Van Dorn v. Romillo that:
To maintain x x x that, under our laws,
[the Filipino spouse] has to be considered still married to [the alien spouse]
and still subject to a wife's obligations x x x cannot be just. [The
Filipino spouse] should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect
and fidelity, and render support to [the alien spouse]. The latter should not
continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in
her own country if the ends of justice are to be served.[22]
As the RTC correctly stated, the provision was
included in the law “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.”[23] The legislative intent is for the benefit of
the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the
doubts created by the divorce decree. Essentially, the second paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code 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.[24] Without the second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code, the judicial recognition of the foreign decree of divorce,
whether in a proceeding instituted precisely for that purpose or as a related
issue in another proceeding, would be of no significance to the Filipino spouse
since our laws do not recognize divorce as a mode of severing the marital bond;[25] Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that
the policy against absolute divorces cannot be subverted by judgments
promulgated in a foreign country. The
inclusion of the second paragraph in Article 26 of the Family Code provides the
direct exception to this rule and serves as basis for recognizing the
dissolution of the marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien
spouse.
Additionally,
an action based on the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code 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 contract another marriage. No court in this jurisdiction, however, can
make a similar declaration for the alien spouse (other than that already
established by the decree), whose status and legal capacity are generally governed
by his national law.[26]
Given the rationale and intent behind the enactment,
and the purpose of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the
RTC was correct in limiting the applicability of the provision for the benefit
of the Filipino spouse. In other words,
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.
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 Gerbert’s
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 alien’s 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. This Section 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.
To our mind, direct involvement or being the subject
of the 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
The 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. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, “no
sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by
a tribunal of another country.”[28] This means that the foreign judgment and its
authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with
the alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the
alien himself or herself.[29] The recognition may 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.
In Gerbert’s case, since both the foreign divorce
decree and the national law of the alien, recognizing his or her capacity to
obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of a sovereign authority, Section
24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court comes into play. This Section 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
The records show that Gerbert attached to his
petition a copy of the divorce decree, as well as the required certificates
proving its authenticity,[30]
but failed to include a copy of the Canadian law on divorce.[31] Under this situation, we can, at this point,
simply dismiss the petition for insufficiency of supporting evidence, unless we
deem it more appropriate to remand the case to the RTC to determine whether the
divorce decree is consistent with the Canadian divorce law.
We deem it more appropriate to take this latter
course of action, given the Article 26 interests that will be served and the
Filipina wife’s (Daisylyn’s) obvious conformity with the petition. A remand, at the same time, will allow other
interested parties to oppose the foreign judgment and overcome a petitioner’s
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[32]
between the parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.[33]
In fact, more than the principle of comity that is served
by the practice of reciprocal recognition of foreign judgments between nations,
the res judicata effect of the
foreign judgments of divorce serves as the deeper basis for extending judicial
recognition and for considering the alien spouse bound by its terms. This same effect, as discussed above, will
not obtain for the Filipino spouse were it not for the substantive rule that
the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provides.
Considerations
beyond the recognition of the foreign divorce decree
As a matter of “housekeeping” concern, we note that
the
Article
407 of the Civil Code states that “[a]cts, events and judicial decrees
concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil
register.” The law requires the entry in
the civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal consequences touching
upon a person’s legal capacity and status, i.e.,
those affecting “all his personal qualities and relations, more or less permanent
in nature, not ordinarily terminable at his own will, such as his being
legitimate or illegitimate, or his being
married or not.”[35]
A judgment of divorce is a judicial decree, although
a foreign one, affecting a person’s legal capacity and status that must be
recorded. In fact, Act No. 3753 or the
Law on Registry of Civil Status specifically requires the registration of
divorce decrees in the civil registry:
Sec. 1. Civil Register. – A civil
register is established for recording the civil status of persons, in which
shall be entered:
(a) births;
(b) deaths;
(c) marriages;
(d) annulments of marriages;
(e)
divorces;
(f) legitimations;
(g) adoptions;
(h) acknowledgment of natural
children;
(i) naturalization; and
(j) changes of name.
x x x x
Sec. 4. Civil Register Books. — The local registrars shall keep and
preserve in their offices the following books, in which they shall,
respectively make the proper entries concerning the civil status of persons:
(1) Birth and death register;
(2)
Marriage register, in which shall
be entered not
only the marriages solemnized but also
divorces and dissolved marriages.
(3) Legitimation, acknowledgment,
adoption, change of name and naturalization register.
But while the law requires the entry of the divorce
decree in the civil registry, the law and the submission of the decree by
themselves do not ipso facto authorize
the decree’s registration. The law
should be read in relation with the requirement of a judicial recognition of
the foreign judgment before it can be given res
judicata effect. In the context of
the present case, no judicial order as yet exists recognizing the foreign
divorce decree. Thus, the Pasig City
Civil Registry Office acted totally out of turn and without authority of law
when it annotated the Canadian divorce decree on Gerbert and Daisylyn’s
marriage certificate, on the strength alone of the foreign decree presented by
Gerbert.
Evidently, the Pasig City Civil Registry Office was
aware of the requirement of a court recognition, as it cited NSO Circular No.
4, series of 1982,[36]
and Department of Justice Opinion No. 181, series of 1982[37]
– both of which required a final order from a competent Philippine court before a foreign judgment, dissolving a
marriage, can be registered in the civil registry, but it, nonetheless, allowed
the registration of the decree. For
being contrary to law, the registration of the foreign divorce decree without
the requisite judicial recognition is patently void and cannot produce any
legal effect.
Another point we wish to draw attention to is that
the recognition that the RTC may extend to the Canadian 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.
Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that “no
entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without judicial
order.” The Rules of Court supplements
Article 412 of the Civil Code by specifically providing for a special remedial
proceeding by which entries in the civil registry may be judicially cancelled
or corrected. Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court sets in detail 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.
It also requires, among others, that the verified petition must be filed
with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located;[38]
that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest must be
made parties to the proceedings;[39]
and that the time and place for hearing must be published in a newspaper of
general circulation.[40]
As these basic jurisdictional requirements have not been met in the present
case, we cannot consider the petition Gerbert filed with the RTC as one filed
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
We
hasten to point out, however, 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[41]
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.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition for review on certiorari, and REVERSE the
SO
ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice |
|
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated additional Member of the Third Division,
in view of the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, per Special Order
No. 843 dated
[1] Dated
[2]
[3]
[4] Marriage
Certificate, id. at 37.
[5] Certificate of
Divorce, id. at 38.
[6]
It would
therefore be premature to register the decree of annulment in the Register of
Annulment of Marriages in
[7] Supra note 1.
[8] Executive Order
No. 209, enacted on
[9] Rollo, p. 31.
[10] G.R. No.
154380,
[11]
[12] Gerbert’s motion
for reconsideration of the RTC’s
October 30, 2008 decision was denied in an order dated February 17,
2009; rollo, p. 32.
[13] Supra note 2.
[14] Rollo, pp. 79-87 and 125-142,
respectively.
[15] The void
marriages are those enumerated under Articles 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, and
53 in relation to Article 52 of the Family Code.
[16] The voidable
marriages are those enumerated under Article 45 of the Family Code.
[17] Garcia v. Recio, G.R. No. 138322,
[18] Ibid. See A. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil
Code of the
[19] Proclamation
No. 3, issued on
[20] G.R. No.
L-68470,
[21] G.R. No. 80116,
[22] Van Dorn v. Romillo, supra note 20 at
144.
[23] Republic v. Orbecido, supra note 10 at 121.
[24] The capacity of
the Filipino spouse to remarry, however, depends on whether the foreign divorce
decree capacitated the alien spouse to do so.
[25] See Article 17
in relation to Article 15 of the Civil Code:
Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or
to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon
citizens of the
x
x x x
Art. 17. x x x Prohibitive laws concerning persons,
their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order,
public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or
judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a
foreign country.
[26]
Parenthetically, we add that an alien’s legal capacity to contract is evidenced
by a certificate issued by his or her respective diplomatic and consular
officials, which he or she must present to secure a marriage license (Article
21, Family Code). The Filipino spouse
who seeks to remarry, however, must still resort to a judicial action for a
declaration of authority to remarry.
[27] Garcia v. Recio, supra note 17 at 447;
citing Van Dorn v. Romillo, supra
note 20.
[28] Remedial Law, Volume II, Rules 23-56
(2007 ed.), p. 529.
[29] Republic v. Orbecido III, supra note 10
at 123 and Garcia v. Recio, supra
note 17 at 448; see also Bayot v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 155635, November 7, 2008, 570 SCRA 472.
[30] Rollo, pp. 38-41.
[31] The foreign
divorce decree only stated that the marriage between Gerbert and Daisylyn was
dissolved by the Canadian court. The
full text of the court’s judgment was not included.
[32] Literally means
“a thing adjudged,” Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed.), p. 1178; it
establishes a rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of
competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their
privies in all later suits, on points and matters determined in the former. Supra note 28 at 462.
[33] See Philsec Investment Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 103493, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 102, 110, where the Court
said:
While this Court
has given the effect of res judicata
to foreign judgments in several cases, it was after the parties opposed to the
judgment had been given ample opportunity to repel them on grounds allowed
under the law. It is not necessary for this purpose to initiate a separate
action or proceeding for enforcement of the foreign judgment. What is essential
is that there is opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for
the court to properly determine its efficacy.
This is because in this jurisdiction, with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from
actions in rem, a foreign judgment
merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim
of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary.
[34] On the face of
the marriage certificate, the word “DIVORCED” was written in big, bold letters;
rollo, p. 37.
[35] Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No.
174689, October 22, 2007, 537 SCRA 373, 390, citing Beduya v. Republic, 120 Phil. 114 (1964).
[36] Rollo, pp. 47-50.
[37]
[38] Section 1, Rule
108, Rules of Court.
[39] Section 3, Rule
108, Rules of Court.
[40] Section 4, Rule
108, Rules of Court.
[41] When the entry
sought to be corrected is substantial (i.e.,
the civil status of a person), a Rule 108 proceeding is deemed adversarial in
nature. See Co v. Civil Register of