KOIKE V KOIKE
DOREEN GRACE PARILLA MEDINA, a.k.a.
"DOREEN GRACE MEDINA
KOIKE," Petitioner
vs.
MICHIYUKI KOIKE, THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY,
METRO MANILA, and THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR
GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE, Respondents
G.R. No. 215723 July 27, 2016
FIRST DIVISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
TOPIC: Article 15 of R.A. No. 386
DOCTRINE: Article 26 of the Family Code - which addresses foreign
marriages or mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a
foreigner - allows a Filipino spouse to contract a subsequent
marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by an
alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.
FACTS:
Petitioner Doreen Grace Parilla (Doreen), a Filipino citizen, and
respondent Michiyuki Koike (Michiyuki), a Japanese national, were married
on June 14, 2005 in Quezon City, Philippines. On June 14, 2012, Doreen
and Michiyuki, pursuant to the laws of Japan, filed for divorce before the
Mayor of Ichinomiya City, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. Seeking to have the said
Divorce Certificate annotated on her Certificate of Marriage on file with the
Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, Doreen filed on February 2013 a
petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity
to remarry pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
Code before the RTC. In a Decision dated July 31, 2014, the RTC denied
Doreen's petition.
It was stated in the RTC ruling that in an action for recognition of
foreign divorce decree pursuant to Article 26 of the Family Code, the
foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien recognizing his or
her capacity to obtain a divorce must be proven in accordance with
Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. The
RTC ruled that while the divorce documents presented by Doreen were
successfully proven to be public or official records of Japan, she
nonetheless fell short of proving the national law of her husband,
particularly the existence of the law on divorce.
Doreen's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated
November 2014; hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the RTC erred in denying the petition for judicial
recognition of foreign divorce.
RULING:
The Court’s Ruling:
At the outset, it bears stressing that Philippine law does not provide
for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. However, Article 26
of the Family Code - which addresses foreign marriages or mixed
marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner - allows a Filipino spouse to
contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained
abroad by an alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.
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.
In Corpuz v. Sta. Tomas,27the Court had the occasion to rule that:
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." 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. 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.
Thus, in Garcia v. Recio,29 it was pointed out that in order for a
divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse to be recognized in our
jurisdiction, it must be shown that the divorce decree is valid
according to the national law of the foreigner. Both the divorce decree
and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the
divorce must be proven.30 Since our courts do not take judicial notice
of foreign laws and judgment, our law on evidence requires that both
the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged
and proven like any other fact.
Considering that the validity of the divorce decree between Doreen
and Michiyuki, as well as the existence of pertinent laws of Japan on the
matter are essentially factual that calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence
presented before the RTC, the issue raised in the instant appeal is
obviously a question of fact that is beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition
for review.
In this regard, it is settled that appeals taken from judgments or final
orders rendered by RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction raising
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law should be brought to
the Court of Appeals (CA) in accordance with Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court.
