Ando vs. Department of Foreign Affairs

A Filipino spouse who obtains a divorce abroad from an alien spouse must secure judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree in Philippine courts before the divorce can be given legal effect in the Philippines. The presentation of the divorce decree alone is insufficient; both the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be alleged and proven, as Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments.

Petitioner Edelina T. Ando is a Filipino citizen who married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese national, on 16 September 2001. The marriage was solemnized in Candaba, Pampanga. The dispute concerns the legal effect of a divorce obtained by Kobayashi in Japan and petitioner's subsequent remarriage to Masatomi Y. Ando, as well as her entitlement to a Philippine passport under her second husband's surname. The case implicates the Family Code provisions on marriage validity, the requirements for judicial recognition of foreign divorce decrees, and the administrative remedies available under the Philippine Passport Act of 1996 (R.A. 8239).

Petitioner Edelina T. Ando married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese national, on 16 September 2001 in a civil wedding solemnized at Candaba, Pampanga. On 16 September 2004, Kobayashi sought and was validly granted under Japanese laws a divorce in respect of his marriage with petitioner. The Divorce Certificate was duly issued by the Consulate-General of Japan and authenticated by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Manila, and was subsequently registered with the Office of the Civil Registry of Manila.

Believing in good faith that the divorce capacitated her to remarry and that she had reverted to her single status, petitioner married Masatomi Y. Ando on 13 September 2005 in a civil wedding celebrated in Sta. Ana, Pampanga. In the meantime, Kobayashi married Ryo Miken on 27 December 2005, as shown in the Japanese Family Registry Record duly authenticated by the Consulate-General of Japan and the Department of Foreign Affairs.

When petitioner applied for the renewal of her Philippine passport to indicate her surname with her husband Masatomi Y. Ando, she was told at the Department of Foreign Affairs that the passport could not be issued to her until she could prove by competent court decision that her marriage with Ando is valid. On 29 October 2010, petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for Declaratory Relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, impleading the DFA as respondent and praying for the declaration of her second marriage as valid and subsisting, and for an order directing the DFA to issue her a passport under the name "Edelina Ando y Tungol."

The RTC initially dismissed the petition for want of cause of action and jurisdiction, but later reconsidered and referred the case to the Family Court. The case was raffled to Branch 45, which dismissed the petition anew on the ground that petitioner had no cause of action, holding that the second marriage was bigamous under Article 35(4) of the Family Code because the first marriage was never recognized as terminated by a Philippine court. The RTC also noted that the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage does not make it valid, as Article 40 of the Family Code applies only in case of remarriage.

• A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC: Petitioner argued that under the Rule on the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, only the wife or husband can file a petition for the declaration of the absolute nullity of a void marriage; thus, the state cannot collaterally attack the validity of a marriage in a petition for declaratory relief.
• Presumption of Validity: Petitioner alleged that under the law, a marriage — even one that is void or voidable — shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.
• Irregularity in Marriage License: Petitioner argued that assuming judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree is required under Article 13 of the Family Code, noncompliance therewith is a mere irregularity in the issuance of a marriage license that does not affect the legality of the marriage.
• Failure to Furnish Copies: Petitioner averred that at the time of filing the Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC had yet to issue summons to respondent, so the court had yet to acquire jurisdiction over them.

• Improper Verification: The DFA, through the OSG, argued that the Petition was improperly verified because the jurat in the Verification only stated that the affiant exhibited "her current and valid proof of identity," without properly indicating what that proof was.
• Judicial Recognition Required: The OSG argued that prior judicial recognition by a Philippine court of a divorce decree obtained by the alien spouse is required before a Filipino spouse can remarry and be entitled to the legal effects of remarriage.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: The OSG argued that petitioner failed to show that she had first exhausted all available administrative remedies, such as appealing to the Secretary of the DFA under R.A. 8239, before resorting to the special civil action of declaratory relief.
• Finality of the RTC Order: The OSG argued that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC was a mere scrap of paper and did not toll the running of the period to appeal, making the RTC Order dated 14 January 2011 final.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Whether petitioner should have appealed the denial of her passport application to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs under R.A. 8239 before filing a petition for declaratory relief.
• Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce: Whether petitioner should have filed a petition for judicial recognition of her foreign divorce decree instead of a petition for declaratory relief seeking recognition of her second marriage as valid.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: No. Petitioner incorrectly filed a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC. Under Section 9 of R.A. 8239 and Article 10 of its IRR, she should have first appealed to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs within fifteen days from notice of denial of her passport application.
• Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce: No. Petitioner should have filed a petition for the judicial recognition of her foreign divorce from her first husband. Under Garcia vs. Recio, both the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be alleged and proven, as Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: The Court found that petitioner's ultimate entreaty was to question the DFA's refusal to issue a passport to her under her second husband's name. Under the IRR of R.A. 8239, a married woman who decides to adopt the surname of her husband must present the original or certified true copy of her marriage contract and one photocopy thereof. In the case of a woman divorced by her alien husband, she must present a certified true copy of the Divorce Decree duly authenticated by the Philippine Embassy or consular post with jurisdiction over the place where the divorce was obtained. Section 9 of R.A. 8239 provides that any person aggrieved by the application of the Act or its IRR has the right to appeal to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, from whose decision judicial review may be had in the courts. Article 10 of the IRR further provides that an applicant whose passport application is denied has the right to appeal in writing to the Secretary within fifteen days from notice of denial. Petitioner's argument that her application "cannot be said to have been either denied, cancelled or restricted" because she was "merely told" that her passport cannot be issued did not persuade the Court, as the law provides a direct recourse for petitioner in the event of the denial of her application.

• Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce: The Court ruled that with respect to petitioner's prayer for the recognition of her second marriage as valid, she should have filed a petition for the judicial recognition of her foreign divorce from her first husband. In Garcia vs. Recio, the Court ruled that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided the decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. The presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient; both the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven, because Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments. 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, the Court was still unable to grant petitioner's prayer because there was insufficient proof on record of both the national law of her first husband, Kobayashi, and of the validity of the divorce decree under that national law. 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.

• Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce — A divorce obtained abroad by an alien spouse may be recognized in Philippine jurisdiction, provided the decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. The presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient; both the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be alleged and proven, as Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments. In this case, the Court held that petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence of both the national law of her first husband and the validity of the divorce decree under that national law.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — A party must exhaust available administrative remedies before resorting to judicial action. Under Section 9 of R.A. 8239 and Article 10 of its IRR, a person whose passport application is denied has the right to appeal in writing to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs within fifteen days from notice of denial. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that petitioner should have appealed to the Secretary of the DFA before filing a petition for declaratory relief.

• Presumption of Validity of Marriage — A marriage, even one that is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. However, the Court noted that the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage is not a requisite to make a marriage valid; rather, such declaration under Article 40 of the Family Code applies only in case of remarriage.

• "From the above provisions, it is clear that for petitioner to obtain a copy of her passport under her married name, all she needed to present were the following: (1) the original or certified true copy of her marriage contract and one photocopy thereof; (2) a Certificate of Attendance in a Guidance and Counseling Seminar, if applicable; and (3) a certified true copy of the Divorce Decree duly authenticated by the Philippine Embassy or consular post that has jurisdiction over the place where the divorce is obtained or by the concerned foreign diplomatic or consular mission in the Philippines." — This passage identifies the documentary requirements for a married woman to obtain a passport under her spouse's surname, which is central to the Court's analysis of petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

• "Clearly, she should have filed an appeal with the Secretary of the DFA in the event of the denial of her application for a passport, after having complied with the provisions of R.A. 8239." — This states the Court's ruling on the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine as applied to passport applications.

• "In Garcia v. Recio, we ruled that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided the decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. The presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient; both the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven." — This articulates the controlling doctrine on judicial recognition of foreign divorce decrees, which is the central legal principle in this case.

• "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." — This states the Court's conclusion that petitioner's evidence was insufficient to support a declaration of the validity of her foreign divorce.

• Garcia vs. Recio, 418 Phil. 723 (2001) — Controlling precedent establishing that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in Philippine jurisdiction provided the decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner, and that both the divorce decree and the governing personal law must be proven.
• Corpuz vs. Sta. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, 11 August 2010, 628 SCRA 266 — Cited for the proposition that Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments, and that both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven like any other fact.
• Republic vs. Orbecido III, 509 Phil. 108 (2005) — Cited for the ruling that a petition for the authority to remarry filed before a trial court actually constitutes a petition for declaratory relief.

• Article 13, Family Code — Requires judicial recognition of a foreign decree of absolute divorce in the Philippines. The RTC initially dismissed the petition for petitioner's failure to comply with this requirement.
• Article 35(4), Family Code — Declares a marriage bigamous if contracted while a prior marriage is still subsisting. The RTC applied this provision in holding that petitioner's second marriage was bigamous because the first marriage was never judicially recognized as terminated.
• Article 40, Family Code — Provides that a judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage is required before a party can remarry. The RTC noted that the absence of such declaration does not make a marriage valid, as this provision applies only in case of remarriage.
• Section 9, R.A. 8239 (Philippine Passport Act of 1996) — Provides the right to appeal to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs for any person aggrieved by the application of the Act or its IRR, from whose decision judicial review may be had in the courts.
• Article 10, IRR of R.A. 8239 — Provides that an applicant whose passport application is denied has the right to appeal in writing to the Secretary within fifteen days from notice of denial.
• Section 2, IRR of R.A. 8239 — Sets forth the documentary requirements for the issuance of passports to married, divorced, or widowed women, including the presentation of the marriage contract and the divorce decree duly authenticated.

• Leonardo-De Castro, J.
• Bersamin, J.
• Perez, J.
• Mendoza, J.