Ando v. Dept.
of Foreign Affairs
G.R. No. 195432 August 27, 2014
FACTS:
On 16 September 2001, Edelina Ando married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese National, in a civil
wedding solemnized at Candaba, Pampanga. On 16 September 2004, Yuichiro Kobayashi sought in
Japan, and was validly granted under Japanese laws, a divorce in respect of his marriage with Edelina.
The said divorce certificate was duly registered with the Office of the Civil Registry of Manila.
Believing in good faith that said divorce capacitated her to remarry and that by such she reverted to her
single status, Edelina while Yuichiro Kobayashi married Ryo Miken on 27 December 2005.
Recently, Edelina applied for the renewal of her Philippine passport to indicate her surname with her
husband Masatomi Y. Ando but she was told at the Department of Foreign Affairs that the same cannot
be issued to her until she can prove by competent court decision that her marriage with her said
husband Masatomi Y. Ando is valid until otherwise declared.
On 29 October 2010, Edeline filed with the RTC a Petition for Declaratory Relief, which was later raffled
off to Branch 46. She impleaded the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) as respondent and prayed for
the declaration as valid and subsisting the marriage between Edelina T. Ando and her husband
Masatomi Y. Ando to entitle Edelina to the issuance of a Philippine Passport under the name “Edelina
Ando y Tungol”; and for the Department of Foreign Affairs to honor Edelina’s marriage to her husband
Masatomi Y. Ando and to issue a Philippine Passport to petitioner under the name ‘Edelina Ando y
Tungol”. In an Order dismissing the Petition for want of cause and action, as well as jurisdiction, the RTC
held there is no showing that petitioner herein complied with the requirements set forth in Art. 13 of
the Family Code — that is obtaining a judicial recognition of the foreign decree of absolute divorce in
our country.
The RTC granted her motion for reconsideration and the case was endorsed and raffled to the Family
Court. However, the trial court dismissed the Petition anew on the ground that petitioner had no cause
of action. The motion for reconsideration of the petitioner was denied by the Court considering that
neither the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) nor respondent was furnished with copies of the
motion.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner can pray in a Petition for Declaratory Relief that her second marriage be
recognized
Ruling:
The court ruled no. With respect to her prayer to compel the DFA to issue her passport, petitioner
incorrectly filed a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC. She should have first appealed before
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, since her ultimate entreaty was to question the DFA’s refusal to issue a
passport to her under her second husband’s name. Second, with respect to her prayer for the
recognition of her second marriage as valid, petitioner should have filed, instead, a petition for the
judicial recognition of her foreign divorce from her first husband.
While it has been ruled that a petition for the authority to remarry filed before a trial court actually
constitutes a petition for declaratory relief, we are still unable to grant the prayer of petitioner. As held
by the RTC, there appears to be insufficient proof or evidence presented on record of both the national
law of her first husband, Kobayashi, and of the validity of the divorce decree under that national law.
Hence, any declaration as to the validity of the divorce can only be made upon her complete submission
of evidence proving the divorce decree and the national law of her alien spouse, in an action instituted
in the proper forum.
