Medina vs. Koike

In a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce under Article 26 of the Family Code, both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien spouse must be proven as facts under the rules on evidence; the question of whether such proof was adequately presented is a question of fact that may be referred to the Court of Appeals under Section 6, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court rather than resolved directly by the Supreme Court in a Rule 45 petition.

Petitioner Doreen Grace Parilla, a Filipino citizen, married respondent Michiyuki Koike, a Japanese national, on June 14, 2005 in Quezon City. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code allows a Filipino spouse to contract a subsequent marriage where a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws, requiring that both the foreign divorce decree and the alien spouse's national law be alleged and proven as facts in accordance with the rules on evidence.

Petitioner Doreen Grace Parilla, a Filipino citizen, and respondent Michiyuki Koike, a Japanese national, were married on June 14, 2005 in Quezon City. Their union bore two children: Masato Koike, born on January 23, 2006, and Fuka Koike, born on April 4, 2007.

On June 14, 2012, Doreen and Michiyuki, pursuant to the laws of Japan, filed for divorce before the Mayor of Ichinomiya City, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. They were divorced on even date, as appearing in the Divorce Certificate, and the divorce was duly recorded in the Official Family Register of Michiyuki Koike.

Seeking to have the Divorce Certificate annotated on her Certificate of Marriage on file with the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, Doreen filed on February 7, 2013 a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code before the RTC, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. Q-13-72692. At the hearing, no one appeared to oppose the petition.

Doreen presented several foreign documents in support of her petition, namely: a "Certificate of Receiving/Certificate of Acceptance of Divorce" and a "Family Register of Michiyuki Koike," both issued by the Mayor of Ichinomiya City and duly authenticated by the Consul of the Republic of the Philippines for Osaka, Japan; a certified machine copy of a "Divorce Certificate" issued by the Consul for the Ambassador of Japan in Manila and authenticated by the Department of Foreign Affairs; and a Certification from the City Civil Registry Office in Manila that the original divorce certificate was filed and recorded in that office. She likewise submitted photocopies of the Civil Code of Japan with English translations, as well as two books entitled "The Civil Code of Japan 2000" and "The Civil Code of Japan 2009," as proof of the existence of Japan's law on divorce.

The RTC denied the petition on July 31, 2014. While it found that the divorce documents were successfully proven as public or official records of Japan, it held that Doreen fell short of proving the national law of her husband—particularly the existence of Japanese law on divorce. The RTC observed that the two books on the Civil Code of Japan were not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan as required by Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, and that Doreen's testimony on the applicable provisions was insufficient because she was not presented as a qualified expert witness nor shown to have a working knowledge of Japanese family law. The RTC likewise declined to consider the books as learned treatises under Section 46, Rule 130, since no expert witness was presented and Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Doreen's motion for reconsideration was denied on November 28, 2014.

• Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce: Whether the RTC erred in denying the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce for failure to duly prove the alien spouse's national law on divorce.
• Propriety of Rule 45 Appeal: Whether the issue raised in the petition for review on certiorari is a question of law cognizable by the Supreme Court under Rule 45, or a question of fact beyond its ambit.

• Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce: Not directly resolved. The case was referred to the Court of Appeals for reception of evidence and resolution of the pertinent factual issues, the Supreme Court having determined that the question was essentially factual.
• Propriety of Rule 45 Appeal: No. The issue is a question of fact beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition, the Supreme Court not being a trier of facts; however, the case was referred to the CA under Section 6, Rule 56 in the interest of substantial justice rather than dismissed.

• Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce: Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce, but Article 26 of the Family Code allows a Filipino spouse to remarry when a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The law confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to the Filipino spouse. However, because Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws, both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien spouse must be proven as facts under the rules on evidence. In this case, the validity of the divorce decree and the existence of pertinent Japanese laws on the matter are essentially factual questions requiring re-evaluation of the evidence presented before the RTC, which the Supreme Court cannot undertake as it is not a trier of facts. Accordingly, the case was referred to the CA for appropriate proceedings including reception of evidence.

• Propriety of Rule 45 Appeal: The resolution of whether the divorce decree and the alien's national law were adequately proven calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence, which is a question of fact beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; the resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings are received with respect and are binding subject to exceptions. Appeals from RTC judgments raising questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law should be brought to the CA under Rule 41. Nonetheless, under paragraph 2, Section 6 of Rule 56, an appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the RTC submitting issues of fact may be referred to the CA for decision or appropriate action. Because the Rules denote discretion on the part of the Court to either dismiss or refer, and because procedural rules ought not to be applied rigidly so as to override substantial justice, the Court exercised its discretion to refer the case to the CA rather than dismiss it.

• Proof of Foreign Law and Judgments — Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien spouse must be alleged and proven as facts under the rules on evidence. The foreign divorce decree must be proven valid according to the national law of the foreigner. This doctrine traces to Corpuz vs. Sta. Tomas and Garcia vs. Recio, and was applied here to explain why the RTC required authentication of Japanese divorce law and why the Supreme Court could not resolve the factual issue directly.

• Article 26, Family Code — Recognition of Foreign Divorce in Mixed Marriages — 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. The provision confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to the Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage.

• Question of Fact vs. Question of Law in Rule 45 Appeals — The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; the resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts. Where the issue calls for re-evaluation of evidence—such as whether foreign law and a divorce decree were adequately proven—the issue is one of fact beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari. Appeals from RTC judgments raising questions of fact or mixed questions should be brought to the CA under Rule 41.

• Referral to the Court of Appeals under Section 6, Rule 56 — An appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the RTC submitting issues of fact may be referred to the CA for decision or appropriate action. The Court's determination of whether issues of fact are involved is final. The Rules denote discretion to either dismiss or refer, and procedural rules may be relaxed to attain substantial justice, the dispensation of justice being the core reason for the existence of courts.

• "The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws." — This passage, quoted from Corpuz vs. Sta. Tomas, articulates the foundational principle governing recognition of foreign divorce: foreign judgments and laws must be proven as facts, not judicially noticed.

• "in order for a divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse to be recognized in our jurisdiction, it must be shown that the divorce decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. Both the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven." — This passage, drawn from Garcia vs. Recio, states the dual requirement for recognition of foreign divorce and is the controlling standard applied to the petitioner's evidentiary submissions.

• "The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice. A deviation from its rigid enforcement may thus be allowed to attain its prime objective, for after all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of the courts." — This passage articulates the rationale for the Court's exercise of discretion to refer rather than dismiss the procedurally improper appeal, and is frequently cited in Philippine jurisprudence on the relaxation of procedural rules.

• Corpuz vs. Sta. Tomas, 642 Phil. 420 (2010) — Followed. Established that Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws, and that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts together with the alien's applicable national law. The Court quoted this case to frame the evidentiary requirements for recognition of foreign divorce.

• Garcia vs. Recio, 418 Phil. 723 (2001) — Followed. Held that for a foreign divorce to be recognized, both the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse must be proven. The Court relied on this case to articulate the dual evidentiary requirement.

• Fujiki vs. Marinay, 712 Phil. 524 (2013) — Cited. The Court referenced this case for the proposition that Article 26 confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution.

• Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Sarabia Manor Hotel Corporation, 715 Phil. 420 (2013) — Cited for the settled rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and that factual findings of lower courts are received with respect and are binding subject to exceptions.

• Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. People, 721 Phil. 760 (2013) — Cited for the rule that appeals from RTC judgments raising questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law should be brought to the CA under Rule 41.

• CGP Transportation and Services Corporation vs. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc., 548 Phil. 242 (2007) — Cited for the provision under Section 6, Rule 56 allowing referral of improper appeals involving issues of fact to the CA, and for the proposition that dismissal for error in mode of appeal is discretionary.

• Spouses Agbulos vs. Gutierrez, 607 Phil. 288 (2009) — Cited for the principle that procedural rules ought not to be applied rigidly and that deviation may be allowed to attain substantial justice.

• Article 26, Family Code (Executive Order No. 209, as amended) — The second paragraph provides that 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. This provision is the statutory basis for the petitioner's petition and the Court's analysis.

• Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence — Section 24 governs proof of official records kept in a foreign country, requiring authentication by a secretary of the embassy, consul-general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent, or any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country. Section 25 requires that the attestation state that the copy is a correct copy of the original and bear the official seal. The RTC applied these provisions to find that the books on the Civil Code of Japan were not duly authenticated.

• Section 46, Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence — Governs the admissibility of learned treatises, requiring either judicial notice by the court or testimony by an expert witness that the writer is recognized as expert in the subject. The RTC declined to treat the Japanese Civil Code books as learned treatises because no expert witness was presented.

• Section 6, Rule 56, Rules of Court — Authorizes the Supreme Court to refer to the Court of Appeals an appeal by certiorari taken from the RTC that submits issues of fact. The Court exercised this discretionary power to refer the case rather than dismiss it for improper mode of appeal.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, limited to questions of law. The Court held that the issue in this case was factual and thus beyond the ambit of Rule 45.

• Rule 41, Rules of Court — Governs appeals from RTC judgments raising questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law, which should be brought to the Court of Appeals.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa concurred with the decision. No separate concurring opinions were written.