Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas

An alien spouse cannot invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, which exclusively benefits the Filipino spouse, but possesses the requisite legal interest to petition for the judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree as presumptive evidence of a right under Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, provided the decree's authenticity and the alien's national law are duly proven.

Gerbert R. Corpuz, a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization on November 29, 2000, married Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, on January 18, 2005, in Pasig City. Following the discovery of his wife's affair in April 2005, Gerbert returned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce. The Superior Court of Justice in Windsor, Ontario, Canada granted the divorce on December 8, 2005, with the decree taking effect on January 8, 2006. Desiring to remarry a Filipina in the Philippines, Gerbert presented the Canadian divorce decree to the Pasig City Civil Registry Office, which annotated the decree on his and Daisylyn’s marriage certificate. The National Statistics Office subsequently informed Gerbert that the foreign divorce decree must first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court before it could be given legal effect.

• Marriage and Separation: Gerbert R. Corpuz, a naturalized Canadian citizen, married respondent Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, on January 18, 2005, in Pasig City. After discovering his wife's affair in April 2005, Gerbert returned to Canada.
• Foreign Divorce: Gerbert filed a petition for divorce in Canada. The Superior Court of Justice, Windsor, Ontario, granted the petition on December 8, 2005, with the decree taking effect on January 8, 2006.
• Attempted Remarriage and Registration: Two years after the divorce, Gerbert intended to marry another Filipina. He presented the Canadian divorce decree to the Pasig City Civil Registry Office, which annotated the decree on his and Daisylyn’s marriage certificate.
• NSO Advisory: An official from the National Statistics Office informed Gerbert that the marriage still subsisted under Philippine law. Pursuant to NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982, a foreign divorce decree must first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court before it can be given effect.
• RTC Petition: Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce with the RTC. Daisylyn did not file a responsive pleading but submitted a notarized manifestation expressing no opposition and her desire to file a similar case, albeit prevented by financial and personal circumstances.
• RTC Denial: The RTC denied the petition, concluding that Gerbert, as a naturalized Canadian citizen, was not the proper party to institute the action. The RTC limited the remedy under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to the Filipino spouse, citing the legislative intent identified in Republic v. Orbecido III.

• Applicability of Article 26: Petitioner argued that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code applies equally to the alien spouse, consistent with the provision's rationale to avoid the absurd situation where one spouse remains bound while the other is free.
• Legal Interest and Standing: Petitioner maintained that he possesses sufficient legal interest to institute the action, as he is directly subject to the foreign judgment and faces the potential prosecution for bigamy if he remarries in the Philippines without judicial recognition of the divorce.
• Nature of the Action: Petitioner characterized the petition as one essentially for declaratory relief, seeking a determination of his rights under Article 26, similar to the action allowed in Republic v. Orbecido III.

• Support for Petitioner: Respondent Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas supported the petition, submitting a manifestation expressing no opposition and her desire to file a similar case, requesting that she be considered a party-in-interest with a similar prayer.
• OSG Concurrence: The Office of the Solicitor General similarly supported Gerbert’s position in its Comment.

• Benefit of Article 26: Whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to the alien spouse the right to petition for the judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
• Legal Interest to Sue: Whether the alien spouse possesses the requisite legal interest to petition for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree despite being unable to invoke Article 26.
• Civil Registry Registration: Whether the mere presentation of a foreign divorce decree authorizes its registration in the civil registry, and whether a petition for judicial recognition is the proper proceeding to cancel entries in the civil registry.

• Benefit of Article 26: The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code cannot be invoked by the alien spouse. The substantive right it establishes is exclusively for the benefit of the Filipino spouse, clarifying marital status and capacitating the Filipino spouse to remarry—a capacity that cannot be granted by Philippine courts to an alien whose status is governed by their national law.
• Legal Interest to Sue: The alien spouse possesses the requisite legal interest to petition for the judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree. The decree itself, once its authenticity and conformity with the alien's national law are proven, serves as presumptive evidence of a right under Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Direct involvement in the foreign judgment clothes the alien spouse with the requisite interest. Because Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws, the decree and the alien's national law must be proven as facts under the rules on evidence.
• Civil Registry Registration: The registration of the foreign divorce decree by the Pasig City Civil Registry Office without prior judicial recognition was patently void and without authority of law. Furthermore, a petition for judicial recognition of a foreign judgment is not the proper proceeding for the cancellation of entries in the civil registry; such cancellation requires a proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court to satisfy jurisdictional requirements like publication and joinder of interested parties. However, to avoid multiplicity of suits, the recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be sought within a Rule 108 proceeding itself.

• Second Paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code — This provision provides a substantive right exclusively in favor of the Filipino spouse to have the marriage to the alien spouse considered dissolved, capacitating him or her to remarry. It 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. The alien spouse cannot claim any right under this provision.
• Presumptive Evidence of a Right (Foreign Judgments) — Under Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a foreign judgment against a person is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest. Direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment clothes a party with the requisite legal interest to institute an action for its recognition in the Philippines.
• Proof of Foreign Judgments and Laws — Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. To be recognized, the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under the rules on evidence, together with the alien's applicable national law, to show the effect of the judgment on the alien. Official acts of a sovereign authority must be proven by official publications or copies attested by the officer having legal custody, accompanied by the proper diplomatic or consular certificate.
• Rule 108 as Proper Venue for Recognition and Cancellation — The recognition of a foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding, which serves as the appropriate adversarial proceeding to test the applicability of the foreign judgment and to authorize the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry, thereby avoiding the need for two separate proceedings.

• "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 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 [the alien spouse], pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 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."

• Republic v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005 — Followed. The Court reiterated the legislative intent behind the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as determined in Orbecido, which is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to an alien who has obtained a divorce.
• Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985 — Followed. The Court recognized that a foreign divorce had severed the marital bond, refusing to acknowledge the alien spouse's assertion of marital rights after the divorce. This case was effectively incorporated into the second paragraph of Article 26.
• Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989 — Followed. Similar to Van Dorn, the Court refused to acknowledge the alien spouse's assertion of marital rights after a foreign divorce decree, forming the jurisprudential basis for Article 26.
• Garcia v. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001 — Followed. The Court declared that a divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be recognized in the Philippines, provided the divorce is valid according to his or her national law.

• Article 26, Family Code (as amended by EO 227) — Provides that where a marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is 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. Applied to establish that the substantive right created is exclusively for the benefit of the Filipino spouse, not the alien spouse.
• Section 48, Rule 39, Rules of Court — Governs the effect of foreign judgments, providing that a judgment against a person is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties. Applied to confer legal interest upon the alien spouse to petition for the recognition of the foreign divorce decree.
• Section 24, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Prescribes the method for proving official records of a foreign country (by official publications or attested copies with proper diplomatic/consular certificates). Applied as the evidentiary standard for proving the foreign divorce decree and the alien's national law.
• Article 407, Civil Code — Requires acts, events, and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons to be recorded in the civil register. Applied to classify a foreign divorce decree as a judicial decree affecting legal capacity that must be recorded, but only after proper judicial recognition.
• Article 412, Civil Code — Declares that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without judicial order. Applied to emphasize that a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment is not the proper proceeding for cancelling civil registry entries, which requires a Rule 108 proceeding.
• Rule 108, Rules of Court — Sets the jurisdictional and procedural requirements for the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. Applied to clarify that the recognition of a foreign divorce and the subsequent cancellation of the marriage record can be consolidated in a single Rule 108 proceeding.

Conchita Carpio Morales, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr.