15.) Corpuz vs. Tirol Sto. Tomas and The Solicitor General (Manalastas)

 

Topic

Case No. Date Case Name Full Case Name

Ponente Nature

 



 



Persons and Family Relations > Marriage > Requisites of Marriage G.R. No. 186571 August 11, 2010 Corpuz vs. Tirol Sto. Tomas and the Solicitor General GERBERT R. CORPUZ, petitioner   vs. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS THE SOLICITOR GENERAL , respondents  Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion 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;

  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):

  Soon after the wedding, petitioner left for Canada



“Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the

due to work and other professional commitments;

  Returned to the Philippines (PH) sometime in April

Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in

2005 to surprise respondent, only to discover her having an affair with another man;

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.



  Returned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce ,



which was granted on December 8, 2005 effective January 8, 2006;

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.” 

  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 filed a same case but was prevented by financial/personal constraints and requested that she be considered a party-ininterest with the same prayer as the petitioner;

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, 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

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



Whether Par. 2, Art. 26 of the FC extends to aliens the

does not necessarily strip such aliens of legal interest

right to petition a Philippine Court for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree

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.

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.

  Direct involvement or being the subject of a foreign



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  

 judgment  is sufficient to clothe a party with the requisite interest to institute an action before our Courts for the recognition of the t he 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 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. part ies. 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 r eview 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.