Ordaneza vs. Republic

A petition for the judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree is a distinct action from a petition for the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court; while the former may be granted based on Rule 39, the latter requires strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 108, including proper venue and the impleading of indispensable parties like the Local Civil Registrar and the Civil Registrar General.

The case arises from the legal challenge faced by Filipino citizens who are married to foreign nationals and obtain a divorce abroad. Under Philippine law, absolute divorce is not permitted for Filipino citizens. However, Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code provides a remedy, allowing a Filipino spouse to remarry if a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse that capacitates the latter to remarry. This provision necessitates a judicial proceeding in the Philippines to recognize the foreign divorce decree before its effects, such as the change in civil status, can be recorded in the Philippine civil registry.

• Petitioner Janevic Orteza Ordaneza, a Filipino citizen, married Masayoshi Imura, a Japanese national, on April 7, 2006, in Pasay City.
• On May 13, 2009, Janevic and Masayoshi obtained a divorce by agreement in Japan, pursuant to the Japanese Civil Code.
• The divorce notification was officially received and registered by the Mayor of Karuya-shi, Aichi, Japan on May 15, 2009.
• On December 8, 2016, Janevic, through her brother as representative, filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and for the change of her civil status from "married" to "single" with the RTC of Kidapawan City.
• During the trial, Janevic presented authenticated documents, including the Certificate of Marriage, Japan Certification of All Information in Family Register, the Divorce Notification, and a copy of the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of Japan.

• The primary relief sought is the judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree, with the change of civil status being merely an incidental consequence.
• A petition under Rule 108 for the correction of entries in the civil registry is not mandatory for recognizing a foreign divorce, citing jurisprudence where the word "may" was used, implying it is a directory, not a mandatory, proceeding.
• The petition was filed in the proper venue (Kidapawan City) based on the petitioner's residence, as governed by the general rules on venue, since it is not a Rule 108 proceeding.
• There was no need to implead the Local Civil Registrar and the Civil Registrar General as the petition was not filed under Rule 108.
• The validity of the foreign divorce under Japanese law was satisfactorily proven in accordance with the Rules of Court on evidence.

• The petition, which includes a prayer to correct an entry in the civil registry (civil status), must strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 108.
• The petitioner failed to comply with Rule 108's requirement on venue, as the petition should have been filed in Pasay City where the marriage was registered, not in Kidapawan City.
• The petitioner failed to implead indispensable parties as required by Rule 108, namely the Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City and the Civil Registrar General.
• The petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that the foreign divorce capacitated the Japanese spouse to remarry, a key requirement under Article 26 of the Family Code, as the specific provisions of Japanese law on this matter were not included in the authenticated documents submitted at trial.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether a petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce that also prays for a change of civil status must be treated as a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the petitioner sufficiently established that her foreign divorce decree complied with the requirements of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, particularly the alien spouse's capacity to remarry.

• Procedural:
  • Yes, a petition seeking to change one's civil status in the civil registry must comply with Rule 108. The Court ruled that while a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree is governed by Rule 39, the prayer for the correction of an entry in the civil registry (i.e., changing status from "married" to "single") falls under Rule 108. The judicial recognition of the divorce does not, by itself, authorize the cancellation or correction of the civil registry entry. To achieve this, the petitioner must comply with the specific jurisdictional requirements of Rule 108, including filing the petition in the province where the civil registry is located and impleading the concerned local civil registrar and the Civil Registrar General. The Court thus denied the prayer for the change of civil status without prejudice to the filing of a proper petition under Rule 108.
• Substantive:
  • Yes, the petitioner sufficiently established the foreign spouse's capacity to remarry. The Court held that despite the petitioner's failure to present the specific articles of the Japanese Civil Code on remarriage during trial, the evidence was sufficient. Citing its ruling in Racho v. Tanaka, which involved the same foreign law, the Court found that the authenticated Divorce Notification, which did not indicate any restriction on the capacity of either spouse to remarry, sufficiently proved that the divorce was absolute and severed the marital ties. This established the Japanese spouse's capacity to remarry, satisfying the second element required under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code.

• Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (Rule 39, Section 48) — This doctrine requires that a foreign judgment, such as a divorce decree, must be formally recognized by a Philippine court in a proper proceeding before it can be given effect in the Philippines. The Court applied this by granting the petition for recognition but separating it from the action to correct the civil registry.
• Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) — This rule provides the specific special proceeding for changing or correcting entries in the civil registry. The Court emphasized that a change in civil status is a substantial correction that must strictly adhere to Rule 108's jurisdictional requirements on venue and the impleading of indispensable parties, which the petitioner failed to do.
• Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code — This provision allows a Filipino spouse to remarry if a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse, provided the divorce capacitates the alien spouse to remarry. The Court applied this by examining whether the two requisites—a valid marriage and a valid divorce capacitating the alien spouse to remarry—were proven. It found both were established.

• "Accordingly, the petition of Janevic is granted only insofar as her foreign divorce decree by agreement is recognized. The other relief prayed for, that her civil status be changed from 'married' to 'single' cannot be given due course and awarded in this petition. This ruling is without prejudice to the filing of a petition for cancellation or correction of entries in compliance with the requirements outlined in Rule 108 where the appropriate adversarial proceeding may be conducted."

• Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas — Cited to establish the fundamental distinction between a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment under Rule 39 and a petition for cancellation of entry in the civil registry under Rule 108, clarifying that these are two different proceedings, although the recognition can be sought within a Rule 108 petition.
• Fujiki v. Marinay — Referenced to support the view that the recognition of a foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding, as the object of such a special proceeding is to establish a status or right of a party.
• Republic v. Manalo — Cited as the seminal case that established the two essential elements for the application of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code: (1) a valid marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner, and (2) a valid divorce obtained abroad that capacitates the alien spouse to remarry.
• Racho v. Tanaka — Used as a controlling precedent to rule that the Japanese spouse's capacity to remarry was sufficiently proven. The Court followed Racho's reasoning that a divorce document from Japan that does not state any restriction on remarriage is sufficient proof that the divorce is absolute and capacitates the parties to remarry.

• Family Code, Article 26, Paragraph 2 — The substantive legal basis for the petition, allowing a Filipino spouse to have a foreign divorce recognized to gain the capacity to remarry.
• Rules of Court, Rule 39, Section 48 — The procedural rule on the "Effect of foreign judgments or final orders," which provides the basis for the action for judicial recognition.
• Rules of Court, Rule 108 — The rule governing the special proceeding for "Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry." The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to comply with its jurisdictional requirements, specifically Section 1 (Venue) and Section 3 (Parties).
• Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 — The rules on evidence for proving an official record, which the petitioner complied with to prove the fact of her foreign divorce.