Republic vs. Kikuchi

For a petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce to prosper under Article 26 of the Family Code, the petitioner must prove two distinct elements: (1) the fact of the divorce, and (2) the national law of the foreign spouse allowing for the divorce. While an authenticated "Acceptance Certificate" from a Japanese local government office suffices to prove the fact of an administrative divorce, a mere photocopy of an unofficial English translation of the foreign law, even if stamped by the foreign embassy's library, is insufficient to prove the foreign law itself.

Jocelyn Asusano Kikuchi, a Filipino, married Fumio U. Kikuchi, a Japanese national, in 1993. In 2007, they jointly filed for and obtained a divorce before the City Hall of Sakado City, Saitama Prefecture, Japan. Subsequently, Jocelyn sought to have this foreign divorce recognized in the Philippines to regain her capacity to remarry under Philippine law, leading her to file a petition for judicial recognition.

• Jocelyn Asusano Kikuchi (Filipino) and Fumio U. Kikuchi (Japanese) were married in 1993.
• In 2007, they jointly filed for divorce before the City Hall of Sakado City, Saitama Prefecture, Japan, which was subsequently accepted.
• In 2015, Jocelyn, through her attorney-in-fact, filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce in the RTC of San Pedro City, Laguna.
• To prove her case, Jocelyn submitted: (1) an Acceptance Certificate issued by the Mayor of Sakado City, (2) an Authentication of this certificate from the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, and (3) a photocopy of an English translation of the Civil Code of Japan published by Eibun-Horei-Sha, Inc.
• The Republic, represented during the trial by the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP), did not object to the evidence presented and manifested that it would not present any controverting evidence.
• The RTC and subsequently the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Jocelyn, leading the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

• The respondent failed to prove the fact of divorce because the Acceptance Certificate was insufficient, and the foreign divorce judgment itself should have been presented.
• The Authentication accompanying the Acceptance Certificate did not comply with the evidentiary rules on proof of official records.
• The testimony of the respondent's attorney-in-fact, Edwin Asusano, should have been excluded for being hearsay.
• The respondent failed to prove the national law of her foreign spouse, as the photocopy of the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan submitted was not an official publication and therefore had no probative value.

• The submitted Acceptance Certificate, duly authenticated by the Philippine Embassy, was sufficient to establish the fact of the divorce, especially since it was obtained through administrative proceedings in Japan.
• The Republic waived its right to object to the evidence, including the allegedly hearsay testimony of her attorney-in-fact, when its representative, the OCP, failed to raise any objection during the trial and manifested it would not present contrary evidence.
• The presented documents were sufficient to prove both the fact of divorce and the Japanese law on divorce, as correctly found by both the RTC and the CA.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the lower courts erred in admitting the evidence presented by the respondent despite the Republic's claims that it was hearsay and not properly authenticated.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the respondent sufficiently proved the fact of the foreign divorce obtained in Japan.
  • Whether the respondent sufficiently proved the existence of the Japanese law on divorce in accordance with the rules of evidence.

• Procedural:
  • The Court ruled that the evidence, including the testimony of the attorney-in-fact, was properly admitted. Evidence not objected to is deemed admitted. Since the Republic's representative (the OCP) did not object during the oral offer of evidence, any objection was waived. The OSG's reservation in its Notice of Appearance did not extend to waiving objections during trial, as it only pertained to service of court issuances.
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that Jocelyn was able to establish the fact of divorce. Following the precedent in Moraña v. Republic, the Acceptance Certificate issued by the Mayor of Sakado City is considered the equivalent of a divorce decree for divorces obtained through administrative proceedings in Japan and is the best evidence of the fact of divorce. The accompanying Authentication was also deemed sufficient, per Racho v. Seiichi Tanaka.
  • However, the Court held that Jocelyn failed to establish the law of Japan on divorce. Following Nullada v. Civil Registrar of Manila, a photocopy of an English translation of the Japanese Civil Code published by a private entity and merely stamped by the Japanese Embassy's library does not constitute sufficient compliance with the rules on proof of foreign law. It is not an official publication or a properly certified copy.
  • Consequently, the Court reversed the decisions of the CA and RTC. However, consistent with the policy of liberality, it remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings to allow Jocelyn to present competent evidence on the Japanese law on divorce.

• Proof of Foreign Judgment and Law — To judicially recognize a foreign divorce, the petitioner must prove both the fact of the divorce and the foreign law allowing it as two separate legal elements, in accordance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. In this case, the Court found the first element was proven by the Acceptance Certificate but the second element, the Japanese law, was not.
• Waiver of Objection to Evidence — Under the Rules of Court, an objection to evidence must be made at the time it is offered; otherwise, it is deemed waived. Since the Republic's counsel did not object to the testimony and documents during the trial, the evidence was deemed admitted, and any objection on appeal was considered belated.
• Policy of Liberality in Foreign Divorce Recognition — In cases involving the recognition of foreign divorce decrees, the Court applies a policy of liberality to avoid the unjust situation where a Filipino remains married to a foreign spouse who is no longer married to him or her. This doctrine was the basis for the Court's decision to remand the case for reception of further evidence on the foreign law, instead of outright dismissal due to failure of proof.

• "For a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce to prosper, the party pleading it must prove the fact of divorce and the national law of the foreign spouse."
• "By whatever name it is called, the Divorce Report is clearly the equivalent of the 'Divorce Decree' in Japan, hence, the best evidence of the fact of divorce obtained by petitioner and her former husband."
• "The records only include a photocopy of excerpts of The Civil Code of Japan, merely stamped LIBRARY, Japan Information and Culture Center, Embassy of Japan... This clearly does not constitute sufficient compliance with the rules on proof of Japan's law on divorce."

• Moraña v. Republic — Cited to affirm that an "Acceptance Certificate" from a Japanese mayor's office is sufficient proof of the fact of an administrative divorce, as it is the official document issued in such proceedings.
• Racho v. Seiichi Tanaka — Referenced to support the sufficiency of the Authentication issued by the Philippine Embassy in Japan that accompanied the Acceptance Certificate.
• Nullada v. Civil Registrar of Manila — Used as the primary basis for ruling that a photocopy of a privately published English translation of the Japanese Civil Code is insufficient to prove the foreign law.
• Arreza v. Toyo — Cited to bolster the finding that the publisher of the submitted Japanese Civil Code, Eibun-Horei-Sha, Inc., is not an official source for translations of Japanese laws.
• Republic v. Manalo — Referenced as a key case establishing the remedy of remanding a case to the trial court for further proceedings when a petitioner fails to prove the foreign law, promoting liberality over strict procedural dismissal.
• Kondo v. Civil Registrar General — Cited to support the application of the policy of liberality in remanding the case for further reception of evidence.

• Family Code, Article 26 — This is the substantive basis for the petition, allowing a Filipino spouse to have a foreign divorce recognized and regain the capacity to remarry if the divorce was validly obtained by the alien spouse under their national law.
• Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 24 — This rule on evidence details the requirements for proving a foreign official record, such as a foreign law or judgment. The respondent failed to comply with this rule regarding the proof of Japanese law.
• Rules of Court, Rule 45, Section 1 — The Court invoked the exceptions under this rule to justify its review of the factual findings of the lower courts, stating the CA had overlooked relevant facts contradicted by the evidence on record.
• Rules of Court, Rule 132, Section 36 — This provision, requiring that objections to oral evidence be made immediately after the offer, was used to rule that the Republic had waived its objections to the respondent's evidence by failing to object during the trial.