Johansen vs. Office of the Civil Registrar General

Venue in special proceedings for the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is jurisdictional, not merely procedural, and must be laid in the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located; consequently, a petition seeking both recognition of a foreign divorce decree and correction of civil status must comply with Rule 108's venue requirements, and the local civil registrar of the place where the record is kept is an indispensable party.

Marietta Pangilinan Johansen, a Filipino citizen, married Knul Johansen, a Norwegian national, in Norway on June 12, 2015. The marriage was recorded with the Philippine Embassy in Oslo. The couple resided in Norway until their separation in 2017 due to marital problems. Knul subsequently obtained a divorce decree under Norwegian law, which was finalized on November 30, 2018 and authenticated by the Philippine Vice Consul in Oslo.

• The Marriage and Divorce: Petitioner, a Filipino citizen, married Knul Johansen, a Norwegian national, in Norway on June 12, 2015. The marriage was recorded in Report of Marriage No. 2016-5780051 of the Philippine Embassy/Consulate in Oslo. The couple lived in Norway until 2017 when they separated due to marital problems. Knul obtained a divorce decree under Chapter 4 of the Norwegian Marriage Act, culminating in a Final Decree of Divorce dated November 30, 2018 issued by the Counter Governor of Oslo and Akershusner and authenticated by the Vice Consul of the Philippine Embassy.
• The Petition: On April 25, 2019, petitioner filed a verified Petition for Recognition of Foreign Judgment of Divorce in the RTC of Malolos City, Bulacan, where she resides. She prayed for the recognition of the Norwegian divorce decree and for an order directing the Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) and/or Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to annotate the decree on the Report of Marriage. She attached the PSA copy of the Report of Marriage, the authenticated Decree of Divorce with translation, and the authenticated Norwegian Marriage Legislation.
• Proceedings Below: The RTC declared the petition sufficient in form and substance on May 10, 2019, and ordered publication for three consecutive weeks and notice to the OCRG, Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan, Civil Registrar of San Miguel, Bulacan, and the PSA. The Office of the Solicitor General authorized the Bulacan Provincial Prosecutor to appear. Despite notice, the State, PSA, and Civil Registrar of San Miguel did not present evidence or object. Petitioner presented evidence on December 5, 2019, and the case was submitted for decision on October 19, 2020.
• The Dismissal: In its Decision dated January 14, 2021, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that because the petition sought annotation/correction of the civil registry, it was governed by Rule 108, where venue is jurisdictional and must be where the record is found. The Report of Marriage being in the DFA (Pasay City) or OCRG (Quezon City), the RTC of Malolos lacked jurisdiction. The RTC denied reconsideration on April 5, 2021, reiterating that the inclusion of a prayer for correction of entry transformed the petition into a special proceeding where venue is jurisdictional.

• Nature of Venue: Petitioner faulted the RTC for declaring venue jurisdictional only after ruling on the sufficiency of the petition and admitting all evidence without opposition from the State. She maintained that venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and is therefore waivable.
• Convenience and Accessibility: She argued that she filed the case in Malolos City because it is convenient and accessible to her as a resident of Sibul, San Miguel, Bulacan.
• Prejudice and Judicial Economy: The dismissal would force her to refile and repeat the publication and notice process, which is prejudicial and unjust. It would also defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments, which is to limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues.

• Jurisdictional Nature of Venue in Rule 108: Whether the RTC erred in ruling that venue under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is jurisdictional.

• Jurisdictional Nature of Venue in Rule 108: The RTC did not err. Rule 108 is a special proceeding to establish a right or particular fact concerning civil status recorded by the State. Pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 108, the petition must be filed with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. In Fox v. Philippine Statistics Authority, the Court declared that venue in Rule 108 is jurisdictional, not merely procedural. The Report of Marriage being in the DFA (Pasay) or OCRG (Quezon City), the RTC of Malolos City lacked jurisdiction. Moreover, the local civil registrar of the place where the record is kept is an indispensable party under Section 3 of Rule 108; petitioner failed to implead the civil registrar of Pasay or Quezon City.

• Recognition of Foreign Divorce versus Correction of Civil Registry: Recognition of a foreign divorce decree is governed by Rule 39, Section 48(b) and Article 26 of the Family Code, requiring proof of the foreign judgment as a fact. Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry is governed by Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108, a special proceeding to establish status or right. While distinct in nature and procedure, both causes of action may be joined in one proceeding under Rule 108, as recognition of the foreign judgment may be made within the Rule 108 proceeding itself, serving as the basis for correction or cancellation of the registry entry.
• Venue in Rule 108 as Jurisdictional: Venue in special proceedings for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 is jurisdictional, not merely procedural. The petition must be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. Failure to file in the proper venue deprives the court of jurisdiction.
• Indispensable Party: The local civil registrar is an indispensable party in petitions under Rule 108; no final determination can be reached without their impleading.

• "Rule 108 is a special proceeding or a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a right, or a particular fact. It creates a remedy to rectify facts of a person's life which are recorded by the State pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753."
• "In Fox v. Philippine Statistics Authority, We declared that Rule 108 pertains to a special proceeding, hence the specific provisions stated therein, particularly on venue, must be observed in order to vest the court with jurisdiction."
• "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."
• "Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy and simplification, parties-in-interest who seek not only to have a foreign decree of divorce recognized in the country but also to cancel or correct their civil status in the local civil registry must file a petition under Rule 108 in relation to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court for correction/cancellation of entry in the civil registry coupled with judicial recognition of foreign judgment."

• Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 642 Phil. 420 (2010) — Held that recognition of a foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, and that the two causes of action (recognition and correction) need not be filed separately.
• Fujiki v. Marinay, 712 Phil. 524 (2013) — Elaborated that recognition of a foreign judgment requiring only proof of fact of the judgment may be made in a special proceeding under Rule 108; a foreign judgment is presumptive evidence of a right that becomes conclusive upon recognition and serves as basis for correction of civil registry.
• Fox v. Philippine Statistics Authority, G.R. No. 233520, March 6, 2019 — Established that Rule 108 is a special proceeding where venue provisions are jurisdictional in nature; sustained the motu proprio dismissal of a petition filed in the wrong venue.
• Republic v. Cote, G.R. No. 212860, March 14, 2018 — Cited for the distinction between recognition of foreign judgment and cancellation/correction of entries.

• Article 26, Family Code — Governs the recognition of foreign divorce decrees where a marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, conferring like capacity on the Filipino spouse.
• Article 412, Civil Code — Provides that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order.
• Rule 39, Section 48(b), Rules of Court — States that a judgment or final order against a person is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties, which may be repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction, notice, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
• Rule 108, Sections 1 and 3, Rules of Court — Section 1 requires filing the petition with the court of the province where the civil registry is located; Section 3 requires the civil registrar and all persons with affected interests to be made parties.
• Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, Rules of Court — Provide for the proof of official records kept in foreign countries.

Leonen (Chairperson), Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ.