Republic vs. Cote

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply to proceedings for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree; such proceedings, when combined with cancellation or correction of civil registry entries under Rule 108, are governed by the ordinary appeal provisions of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, and a motion for reconsideration is not a condition precedent to the filing of an appeal. However, an RTC's erroneous application of the wrong procedural rule does not automatically constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, so long as the court did not act in a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary manner.

Rhomel Gagarin Cote and Florie Grace Manongdo-Cote were married on July 31, 1995, in Quezon City, both being Filipino citizens at the time of the marriage and already having a son, Christian Gabriel Manongdo, who was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. Rhomel subsequently naturalized as an American citizen and, on August 23, 2002, filed a Petition for Divorce before the Family Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on the ground that the marriage was irretrievably broken. The Hawaiian court issued a decree of absolute divorce the same day, dissolving the bonds of matrimony and restoring both parties to single status. Philippine family law does not recognize absolute divorce between Filipino spouses, but Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Family Code provides a remedy for a Filipino spouse whose alien spouse obtains a valid divorce abroad capacitating the alien to remarry.

Rhomel Gagarin Cote and Florie Grace Manongdo-Cote were married on July 31, 1995, in Quezon City. At the time of their marriage, both spouses were Filipino citizens, and they were already blessed with a son, Christian Gabriel Manongdo, who had been born in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America. Rhomel subsequently became a naturalized American citizen. On August 23, 2002, he filed a Petition for Divorce before the Family Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on the ground that the marriage was irretrievably broken. The Hawaiian court granted the petition the same day, issuing a decree of absolute divorce that dissolved the bonds of matrimony, restored both parties to the status of single persons, and permitted either party to marry from and after the effective date of the decree.

Seven years later, Florie commenced a petition for recognition of the foreign judgment granting the divorce before the Regional Trial Court. She likewise prayed for the cancellation of her marriage contract, impleading the Civil Registry of Quezon City and the National Statistics Office. The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the Philippines, deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor to appear on behalf of the State during the trial. On April 7, 2011, the RTC granted the petition, declaring Florie capacitated to remarry pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Family Code. The RTC found that Florie had sufficiently established that she was a Filipino citizen married to an American citizen, and that her husband had obtained a divorce decree on August 22, 2002, which was authenticated and registered by the Consulate General to the Philippines in Honolulu, Hawaii. The RTC ruled that Florie was placed in the absurd situation contemplated under Article 26, paragraph 2, of being married to somebody who was no longer married to her, and accordingly allowed her to contract a subsequent marriage.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Notice of Appeal on May 17, 2011, having received a copy of the RTC decision on May 5, 2011. The RTC, however, denied the appeal on the ground that no prior motion for reconsideration was filed, applying Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. The Republic then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, claiming that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA denied the petition in a decision dated January 21, 2014, finding no grave abuse of discretion attributable to the RTC and additionally noting that the Republic's failure to attach the transcript of stenographic notes and the judicial affidavit to its certiorari petition was itself a ground for dismissal under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. The CA denied the Republic's motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated June 11, 2014. The Republic then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

• Procedural Rule Applicability: Petitioner argued that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not cover cases involving recognition of foreign divorce decrees, because the wording of Section 1 thereof clearly states that it shall only apply to petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner claimed that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in applying the procedural rules for nullity of marriage proceedings under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC in a proceeding for recognition of a foreign decree of divorce.
• State's Personality to Intervene: Petitioner contended that the CA erred in ruling that the State has no personality to intervene in proceedings for recognition of foreign divorce decrees.
• Sufficiency of Attachments: Petitioner argued that the failure to append copies of the transcript of stenographic notes of Florie's direct examination and her judicial affidavit was not fatal, considering that the very same documents were incorporated and quoted by Florie in her comment.
• Citizenship at Time of Divorce: Petitioner maintained that the RTC erred in granting Florie's petition despite lack of showing that her former Filipino husband was already an American citizen at the time he procured the decree of divorce.

• Applicability of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC: Whether the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC apply to a case involving recognition of a foreign decree of divorce, or whether the ordinary appeal provisions of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court govern instead.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the RTC's erroneous application of Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — requiring a prior motion for reconsideration before an appeal — constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• State's Personality to Intervene: Whether the State has personality to intervene in proceedings for recognition of a foreign decree of divorce.
• Sufficiency of Certiorari Attachments: Whether the failure of the petitioner to append copies of the transcript of stenographic notes and judicial affidavit to its certiorari petition is fatal notwithstanding that the same documents were incorporated and quoted by the respondent in her comment.
• Citizenship at Time of Divorce: Whether the RTC erred in granting the petition for recognition of foreign divorce despite lack of showing that the former Filipino husband was already an American citizen at the time he procured the divorce decree.

• Applicability of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC: No. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply to proceedings for recognition of foreign divorce decrees; such proceedings are governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, and appeals therefrom are governed by Rule 41, under which a motion for reconsideration is not a condition precedent to the filing of a notice of appeal.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. Although the RTC erroneously misapplied A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, such error does not automatically equate to grave abuse of discretion, the RTC not having acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or whimsically in arriving at its decision.
• State's Personality to Intervene: Resolved against petitioner by operation of the denial of the petition and affirmance of the CA's ruling, the Court not having expressly disturbed the CA's disposition on this point.
• Sufficiency of Certiorari Attachments: Resolved against petitioner by operation of the denial of the petition and affirmance of the CA's ruling, the Court not having expressly reversed the CA's finding that the omission was a ground for dismissal under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
• Citizenship at Time of Divorce: Resolved against petitioner, the RTC having found that Rhomel was already an American citizen when he obtained the divorce decree, and the Court not having disturbed this factual finding.

• Applicability of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC: The Court began by distinguishing divorce from annulment and declaration of absolute nullity under Philippine family law. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers only void marriages (those enumerated under Articles 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, and 53 in relation to Article 52 of the Family Code) and voidable marriages (those enumerated under Article 45 of the Family Code). Void and voidable marriages contemplate a situation wherein the basis for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity or annulment exists before or at the time of the marriage, treating the marriage as if it never existed. Divorce, on the other hand, ends a legally valid marriage and is usually due to circumstances arising after the marriage. Because Florie's petition was one for recognition of a foreign divorce decree combined with cancellation of entries in the civil registry — a special proceeding governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court — the appeal from the RTC decision should be governed by Section 3 of Rule 41, not Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Under Rule 41, the appeal is taken within fifteen days from notice of the judgment, and the period is interrupted only by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration; no such motion is a condition precedent. Petitioner received the RTC decision on May 5, 2011, and filed its notice of appeal on May 17, 2011, thus complying with the fifteen-day reglementary period. The RTC's denial of the appeal on the ground that no prior motion for reconsideration was filed was therefore erroneous.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Although the Court agreed that the RTC misapplied A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, it held that not all errors attributed to a lower court fall under the scope of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, where the abuse must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law. After careful consideration of the evidence and Florie's compliance with the jurisdictional requirements, the RTC rendered judgment recognizing the foreign divorce decree and declaring Florie capacitated to remarry under Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Family Code. The Court found no indication that the RTC acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or whimsically. The burden was on the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and this burden was not discharged. The CA was therefore correct in denying the Rule 65 petition, notwithstanding the RTC's erroneous dismissal of the appeal.

• State's Personality to Intervene: The Court did not expressly analyze this issue in its ruling section. The denial of the petition and affirmance of the CA's disposition effectively sustained the CA's treatment of the matter.

• Sufficiency of Certiorari Attachments: The Court did not expressly analyze this issue in its ruling section. The denial of the petition and affirmance of the CA's ruling — which had found the omission to be a ground for dismissal under the last paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court — effectively sustained the CA's disposition.

• Citizenship at Time of Divorce: The Court did not expressly analyze this issue in its ruling section. The RTC had found that Rhomel was already an American citizen when he obtained the divorce decree, and the Court did not disturb this finding. The denial of the petition effectively sustained the RTC's grant of the petition and the CA's affirmance thereof.

• Article 26, Paragraph 2, of the Family Code — Recognition of Foreign Divorce — 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 reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry, as established in Republic vs. Orbecido III. The Court applied this provision to sustain the RTC's declaration that Florie, a Filipino citizen whose naturalized-American husband obtained a valid divorce abroad, was capacitated to remarry.

• Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgments — Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. 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. Recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for that purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of a claim or defense. The Court relied on this principle to explain the nature of Florie's petition before the RTC.

• Recognition of Foreign Divorce in Rule 108 Proceedings — The recognition of a foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings is to establish the status or right of a party or a particular fact. Rule 108 can serve as the appropriate adversarial proceeding by which the applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured and tested in terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Two separate proceedings — one for recognition and another for cancellation of entries — are not required. The Court applied this doctrine to confirm that Florie's petition, which combined recognition of the divorce with cancellation of civil registry entries, was properly brought under Rule 108.

• Distinction Between Divorce and Annulment/Nullity — Void and voidable marriages contemplate a situation wherein the basis for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity or annulment exists before or at the time of the marriage, treating the marriage as if it never existed. Divorce, on the other hand, ends a legally valid marriage and is usually due to circumstances arising after the marriage. The Court applied this distinction to hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which governs only nullity and annulment proceedings, does not apply to recognition of foreign divorce.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. Not all errors attributed to a lower court fall under the scope of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari. The Court applied this standard to hold that the RTC's erroneous application of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, while indeed a mistake, did not rise to the level of grave abuse of discretion.

• "A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC only covers void and voidable marriages that are specifically cited and enumerated in the Family Code of the Philippines." — This passage defines the scope of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and forms the basis for the Court's holding that the Rule does not apply to recognition of foreign divorce proceedings.

• "Void and voidable marriages contemplate a situation wherein the basis for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of the marriage exists before or at the time of the marriage. It treats the marriage as if it never existed. Divorce, on the other hand, ends a legally valid marriage and is usually due to circumstances arising after the marriage." — This passage articulates the conceptual distinction between nullity/annulment and divorce that underpins the Court's ruling on the inapplicability of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC to recognition proceedings.

• "Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility." — This passage states the canonical definition of grave abuse of discretion applied by the Court in finding that the RTC's procedural error did not warrant certiorari.

• "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." — This passage, quoted from Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas, establishes that a single Rule 108 proceeding suffices for both recognition of a foreign divorce and cancellation of civil registry entries, confirming the procedural propriety of Florie's petition.

• Republic vs. Orbecido III, 509 Phil. 108 (2005) — Controlling precedent. The Court relied on this case to establish that the reckoning point for Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Family Code is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad, not at the time of the celebration of the marriage. This principle supported the RTC's finding that Florie's marriage to a naturalized-American spouse fell within Article 26.

• Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas, et al., 642 Phil. 420 (2010) — Followed. The Court cited this case for the doctrine that recognition of a foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, and that two separate proceedings are not required. The Court also relied on it for the principle that Rule 108 can serve as the appropriate adversarial proceeding to test the applicability of a foreign judgment.

• Republic of the Phils. (rep. by the Phil. Orthopedic Center) vs. Spouses Luriz, 542 Phil. 137 (2007) — Cited for the principle that an appeal is a statutory right that must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law, and that a party who has complied with the rules on appeal is entitled to the proper and just disposition of its cause.

• Ganaden, et al. vs. The Hon. CA, et al., 665 Phil. 261 (2011) — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which the Court applied in determining that the RTC's procedural error did not warrant certiorari.

• Article 26, paragraph 2, Family Code of the Philippines — 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. Applied to sustain the RTC's declaration that Florie was capacitated to remarry, her naturalized-American husband having obtained a valid divorce abroad.

• Section 1, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) — Provides that the Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code. The Court held that this provision limits the scope of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC to nullity and annulment proceedings, excluding recognition of foreign divorce.

• Section 20, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — Requires a prior motion for reconsideration before an appeal may be taken from a decision in nullity or annulment proceedings. The Court held that the RTC erred in applying this provision to a recognition-of-foreign-divorce proceeding, as the Rule does not cover such proceedings.

• Section 3, Rule 41, Rules of Court — Provides that an ordinary appeal shall be taken within fifteen days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from, and that the period of appeal is interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. The Court held that this provision, not Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, governs appeals from RTC decisions in recognition-of-foreign-divorce proceedings brought under Rule 108.

• Rule 108, Rules of Court — Governs the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. The Court held that Rule 108 serves as the appropriate adversarial proceeding for recognition of a foreign divorce decree, and that a separate proceeding for cancellation of entries is not required.

• Section 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court — Allows the dismissal of a petition for certiorari if the material parts of the records are not attached. The CA applied this provision to sustain the dismissal of the Republic's certiorari petition, noting that the need to submit the transcript of stenographic notes was obvious given that the petitioner was challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

• Article 412, Civil Code of the Philippines — Declares that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without judicial order. The Court cited this provision as the statutory basis for Rule 108 proceedings.

Carpio (Chairperson, designated as Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concurred.