Racho vs. Tanaka

A foreign divorce can be judicially recognized in the Philippines regardless of which spouse initiated the proceeding, including divorces obtained by mutual agreement, as long as it is proven that the divorce was validly obtained according to the national law of the foreign spouse and that said law allows for the absolute dissolution of the marriage. A duly authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is sufficient and admissible proof of the fact of a foreign divorce.

Rhodora Racho, a Filipina, married Seiichi Tanaka, a Japanese national, in the Philippines. After nine years of living together in Japan, they obtained a divorce by agreement according to Japanese law. To be able to remarry, Racho needed to have the foreign divorce recognized in the Philippines to have it annotated on her Certificate of Marriage. However, her attempts to register the divorce with Philippine authorities were unsuccessful without a court order, prompting her to file a petition for judicial recognition.

• Rhodora Ilumin Racho, a Filipino citizen, and Seiichi Tanaka, a Japanese national, were married in Las Piñas City on April 20, 2001.
• The couple lived together in Saitama Prefecture, Japan, for nine years and had no children.
• On December 16, 2009, Tanaka filed for and was granted a divorce by agreement in Japan.
• Racho secured a Divorce Certificate from the Japanese Consulate in the Philippines, which was authenticated by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
• Racho was unable to register the divorce with the Civil Registry of Manila or renew her passport at the Department of Foreign Affairs because she lacked a Philippine court order recognizing the divorce.
• On May 19, 2010, Racho filed a Petition for Judicial Determination and Declaration of Capacity to Marry with the RTC, submitting the Divorce Certificate and an English version of the Civil Code of Japan as evidence.
• The RTC denied the petition, stating that the Divorce Certificate was not the divorce decree itself and was therefore not competent evidence to prove the divorce.
• Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, Racho submitted a duly authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce, which certified that the divorce was accepted by the Mayor of Fukaya City, Saitama Prefecture, on December 16, 2009.

• The Divorce Certificate, which states the "Acceptance Certification of Notification of Divorce," is sufficient proof that the divorce was effected by agreement and notification under Japanese law.
• Under Japanese law, specifically Article 728 of its Civil Code, a matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce, which legally capacitates her to remarry.
• The subsequently submitted Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce, being duly authenticated, is admissible and sufficient evidence of the fact of divorce.
• A narrow interpretation of Article 26 of the Family Code that does not recognize divorce by agreement would be discriminatory against Filipino spouses.

• The Divorce Certificate initially presented was not properly authenticated under Rule 132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court and had no probative value.
• A divorce by agreement is not the divorce contemplated under Article 26 of the Family Code, which requires the divorce to be "validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse," implying the alien spouse must initiate it.
• The petitioner failed to point to a specific provision in the Japanese Civil Code that explicitly allows spouses who obtained a divorce by agreement the capacity to remarry.
• The Office of the Solicitor General did not object to the admission of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce that the petitioner submitted to the Supreme Court.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Supreme Court can resolve factual issues in a petition for review on certiorari.
  • Whether the duly authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is admissible and sufficient evidence to prove the fact of a foreign divorce.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code requires that a foreign divorce be initiated solely by the foreign spouse.
  • Whether a divorce obtained by mutual agreement is valid for recognition in the Philippines under Article 26 of the Family Code.
  • Whether the petitioner sufficiently proved that the Japanese divorce was absolute and capacitated the foreign spouse to remarry.

• Procedural:
  • Yes, the Court resolved the factual issues directly in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency, noting that the court records were sufficient and the Solicitor General did not object to the key evidence.
  • Yes, the Court held that the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce, having been duly authenticated in accordance with Rule 132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court, is admissible evidence of the fact of divorce between the petitioner and the respondent.
• Substantive:
  • No, the Court, citing Republic v. Manalo, held that the letter of Article 26 does not demand that the alien spouse be the one to initiate the divorce proceeding. The provision's purpose is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino is still married while the foreigner is not, making the identity of the initiating party irrelevant.
  • Yes, since the divorce by agreement was established as a valid form of divorce under Japanese law, it falls within the scope of a "divorce... validly obtained abroad" under Article 26.
  • Yes, the Court found that Article 728 of the Civil Code of Japan, which states that "The matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce," is absolute in its wording and contains no restrictions. This provision, combined with the authenticated proof of divorce, is sufficient to establish that the divorce was absolute and capacitated the parties to remarry.

• Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce — Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments. To be recognized, a foreign divorce requires that the divorce decree and the foreign spouse's national law be pleaded and proved as facts in a Philippine court. This doctrine formed the basis for Racho's petition.
• Interpretation of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code — This provision is a substantive right for Filipino spouses to have their marriage dissolved and be capacitated to remarry after a valid foreign divorce is obtained by the alien spouse. The Court interpreted it liberally to mean that the divorce is considered "validly obtained" as long as it is valid under the foreign spouse's law, regardless of who initiated the proceedings, thereby upholding the constitutional principle of gender equality.
• Proof of Official Foreign Records (Rule 132, Section 24, Rules of Court) — For a foreign public document to be admissible in Philippine courts, it must be evidenced by a copy attested by its legal custodian and accompanied by a certificate from a Philippine diplomatic or consular officer in that country, authenticated by their official seal. The Court applied this rule to admit the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce.
• Spirit of the Law (Ratio Legis) — The Court affirmed the principle that when a literal interpretation of a statute leads to an absurd or unjust result, the spirit and purpose of the law should prevail. This was applied to Article 26 to prevent the unjust situation of a Filipino spouse remaining married to a divorced foreigner.

• Quote — "The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding. The Court is bound by the words of the statute; neither can We put words in the mouths of the lawmakers." (citing Republic v. Manalo)

• Republic v. Manalo — Cited as the controlling precedent establishing that Article 26 of the Family Code applies regardless of whether the Filipino or the foreign spouse initiated the divorce proceeding.
• Garcia v. Recio — Referenced for the twin requirements of proving the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien spouse as facts. It was also cited to highlight the need to prove that the foreign divorce is absolute, not limited.
• Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas — Cited to reinforce the principle that Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments, which must be proven as facts under the rules of evidence.
• Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. — Cited as the landmark case that established the legal basis, prior to the Family Code, for recognizing a foreign divorce to prevent the absurd situation where a Filipino spouse remains married to an alien who is no longer bound by the marriage.
• Republic v. Orbecido III — Distinguished from the present case because, in Orbecido, the respondent failed to prove the national law of the foreign spouse, whereas here, Racho successfully proved the relevant Japanese law.

• Family Code, Article 26, Paragraph 2 — This is the central legal provision governing the case, which allows a Filipino spouse to have a foreign divorce recognized and to be capacitated to remarry. The Court's liberal interpretation of this article was the core of its ruling.
• Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 24 — This procedural rule on the authentication of official foreign records was applied to determine the admissibility of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce, which was crucial for the petitioner's case.
• Civil Code of Japan, Article 728(1) — This provision ("The matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce.") was presented as proof of the foreign spouse's national law. The Court found its absolute language sufficient to prove that the divorce capacitated the parties to remarry.
• Constitution, Article II, Section 14 — This provision on the State's recognition of the role of women and fundamental equality was invoked to support a broad interpretation of Article 26 of the Family Code, arguing that a narrow reading would be discriminatory against Filipino women.