SHELA BACALTOS ASILO vs. PRESIDING JUDGE MARIA LUISA LESLE2 G. GONZALESBETIC, Branch 225, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City

In a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, the nationality of the alien spouse at the time of the divorce and the specific national law of the alien spouse that recognizes the divorce and capacitates them to remarry are ultimate facts that must be specifically alleged in the initiatory pleading and duly proven during trial to establish a cause of action.

Shela Bacaltos Asilo, a Filipino citizen, married Tommy Wayne Appling, a foreign national, in Hong Kong on November 1, 2002. They lived together in Hong Kong until their separation on August 11, 2011. Subsequently, they obtained a divorce decree in Hong Kong. To have the divorce recognized in the Philippines and to be able to revert to her maiden name, Shela filed a Petition for Recognition of a Foreign Judgment of Divorce with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

• Shela Bacaltos Asilo (petitioner), a Filipino, married Tommy Wayne Appling in Hong Kong on November 1, 2002.
• The couple lived in Hong Kong until their separation on August 11, 2011, after which they obtained a divorce in Hong Kong.
• On February 25, 2014, Shela filed a Petition for Recognition of a Foreign Divorce in the RTC of Quezon City.
• During the trial, Shela presented a Decree of Absolute Divorce issued in Hong Kong, but she did not present evidence of the law on divorce of Hong Kong.
• The RTC denied the petition on two grounds: first, that Shela failed to prove the applicable foreign law, and second, that the divorce was obtained by the Filipino spouse, which it believed was not allowed to be recognized.
• Crucially, Shela's petition did not contain any allegation regarding Tommy's nationality at the time the divorce was obtained, nor did it allege what his national law was and that said law recognized the divorce and capacitated him to remarry.
• Shela presented evidence that Tommy had since remarried another Filipina, arguing this proved the divorce was validly recognized.

• The Court of Appeals should not have dismissed her case on mere procedural grounds, such as availing of the wrong remedy, as her cause was meritorious.
• The RTC's ruling was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Fujiki v. Marinay, justifying her resort to a petition for certiorari.
• She was merely pressured by her husband, Tommy, to be the one to file for the divorce in Hong Kong.
• The fact that Tommy has already validly remarried a Filipina proves that the foreign divorce has been recognized.
• As an alternative ground, Tommy suffers from psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, which should be considered.

• The petitioner availed of the wrong remedy by filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals instead of an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.
• The petition for certiorari was filed out of time and served as an improper substitute for a lost appeal.
• The issues raised by the petitioner were errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction, which are not correctable by certiorari.
• The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code does not apply when the divorce decree is obtained by the Filipino spouse.
• The petitioner's citation of the Fujiki case is misleading as the facts and ruling are not applicable to her situation.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong remedy to assail the RTC's final decision and order.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree can be granted if the initiatory pleading fails to allege the nationality and the national law of the alien spouse which capacitates him to remarry.
  • Whether a foreign divorce decree obtained by the Filipino spouse can be recognized in Philippine jurisdiction.

• Procedural:
  • Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing the petition. The proper remedy to question the RTC's decision, which involved mixed questions of fact and law and alleged errors of judgment, was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy for correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The petitioner's failure to file a timely appeal rendered the RTC decision final, and certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal.
• Substantive:
  • No, the petition cannot be granted. The failure to allege the ultimate facts of the alien spouse's nationality and his corresponding national law is fatal to the cause of action. These facts are constitutive elements for the recognition of a foreign divorce under Article 26(2) of the Family Code. Without being alleged in the pleading, evidence to prove them cannot be presented and considered. The Court clarified that the four ultimate facts that must be alleged are: (1) the celebration of a marriage between a Filipino and an alien; (2) the subsequent acquisition of an absolute divorce abroad; (3) the nationality of the alien spouse at the time of the divorce; and (4) the national law of the alien spouse that recognizes the divorce and capacitates them to remarry.
  • Yes, a foreign divorce can be recognized regardless of who initiated it. Citing the seminal case of Republic v. Manalo, the Court reiterated that the legislative intent of Article 26(2) is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino is still married to an alien who is no longer married to the Filipino. This principle applies whether the Filipino or the alien spouse initiated the divorce proceedings. However, this point was rendered moot by the petitioner's failure to properly plead her case.

• Ultimate Facts in Pleadings — This doctrine requires that a pleading must contain a plain and direct statement of the essential facts constituting the party's cause of action. In this case, the Court held that in a petition for recognition of foreign divorce, the alien spouse's nationality and the national law that capacitates them to remarry are "ultimate facts." The petitioner's failure to allege these in her petition was fatal to her cause of action.
• Recognition of Foreign Divorce (Article 26, Family Code) — This principle, articulated in the second paragraph of Article 26, allows a Filipino spouse to have a foreign divorce recognized in the Philippines, thereby capacitating them to remarry, provided the divorce was validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse and capacitated the alien to remarry under their national law. The Court applied the Manalo interpretation that this rule applies even if the Filipino spouse initiated the divorce.
• Error of Judgment vs. Error of Jurisdiction — An error of judgment involves mistakes in a court's findings of fact or law within its authority and is correctable by appeal. An error of jurisdiction occurs when a court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, which is correctable by a writ of certiorari. The Court ruled that the RTC's denial of the petition constituted an error of judgment, making the petitioner's resort to certiorari the wrong remedy.
• Proof of Foreign Law and Judgment — This doctrine states that foreign laws and judgments are not subject to judicial notice by Philippine courts and must be pleaded and proven as facts in accordance with the rules on evidence. The Court found that the petitioner failed at the first step, which is to properly plead (allege) the necessary foreign law.

• "In a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree, the nationality of the alien spouse, and the national law of the alien spouse, which recognizes the foreign divorce decree and thereby capacitates said alien spouse to remarry, must be specifically alleged in the initiatory pleading and duly proven in the course of trial."
• "At this juncture, for purposes of clarity, the Court states that in a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree on the basis of Article 26(2) of the Family Code, the ultimate facts that must be alleged are as follows: 1. The celebration of a marriage between a Filipino and an alien; 2. The subsequent acquisition of an absolute divorce in a foreign jurisdiction; 3. The nationality of the alien spouse at the time the absolute divorce was obtained; and 4. The national law of the alien spouse, which recognizes the absolute divorce and capacitates said alien spouse to remarry."

• Republic v. Manalo — Cited as the controlling precedent establishing that a foreign divorce may be recognized in the Philippines regardless of whether it was initiated by the Filipino or the alien spouse.
• Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas — Referenced to support the established rule that foreign judgments and laws are not taken judicial notice of and must be proven as facts under Philippine rules on evidence.
• Madrigal Transport Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation — Cited to elucidate the distinction between an error of judgment, which is correctable by appeal, and an error of jurisdiction, which is the proper subject of a petition for certiorari.
• Remitere v. Vda. de Yulo — Referenced for the definition of "ultimate facts" as the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action, which must be alleged in a pleading.

• Family Code, Article 26(2) — This is the substantive legal basis for a petition to recognize a foreign divorce decree obtained in a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreign national.
• Rules of Court, Rule 65 (Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus) — The Court identified this as the incorrect remedy availed by the petitioner, as it is intended to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.
• Rules of Court, Rule 41 (Appeal from the Regional Trial Courts) — This was cited as the proper, but lost, remedy that the petitioner should have used to question the RTC's decision.
• Rules of Court, Rule 8, Section 1 (In General [Ultimate Facts]) — This procedural rule was the core basis for the denial of the petition, as the petitioner failed to allege the ultimate facts required to establish her cause of action.
• Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 (Proof of official record; What attestation of copy must state) — These sections outline the procedure for proving foreign judgments and laws, which must be pleaded first before they can be proven.