Tsutsumi vs. Republic

A divorce by mutual agreement validly obtained in Japan, proved by an authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce and Divorce Certificate together with the authenticated English translation of Article 763 of the Japanese Civil Code allowing divorce by agreement, is recognizable under paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code to capacitate the Filipino spouse to remarry, with procedural rules on proof liberally construed to serve substantial justice.

Regie David Tsutsumi, a Filipino citizen, was married to Ayahiro Tsutsumi, a Japanese national. Philippine law treats marriage as an inviolable social institution and does not provide for absolute divorce between Filipino citizens. Paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code provides a limited exception for marriages between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner where a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad capacitating the alien spouse to remarry.

Regie David Tsutsumi and Ayahiro Tsutsumi, a Filipino and a Japanese national respectively, married on August 17, 1995 in Tarlac City, Tarlac after about a year of courtship. Their union was blessed with two children. Nearly 21 years later, on April 11, 2016, for reasons they deemed unresolved and irreconcilable, they mutually decided to file a divorce application in Japan.

Thereafter, on September 22, 2017, the Head of Saiwai Ku, Kawasaki City certified acceptance of the Notification of Divorce dated April 11, 2016. On March 7, 2018, the Embassy of Japan issued a Divorce Certificate stating Regie Cabigting David, Filipino, born April 2, 1969, and Ayahiro Tsutsumi, married August 17, 1995, were divorced April 11, 2016, based on the Official Family Register issued by the Head of Saiwai Ku, Kawasaki City, Kanagawa Prefecture. The Certificate of Acceptance with English translation by Kenichi Usuki, certified by Vice Consul Shuichi Nishimura and authenticated by Department of Foreign Affairs Authentication Officer Manuel B. Duran, Jr., and the Divorce Certificate similarly authenticated, were filed and recorded with the City Civil Registry Office of Manila on April 24, 2018 under Reg. No. 14762, Series of 2018.

Consequently, petitioner through her attorney-in-fact Atty. Ronald O. Layawen filed a Petition for Recognition of Foreign Divorce before the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City. During hearing no oppositor appeared, and Atty. Layawen testified by judicial affidavit identifying the petition, marriage certificate, Certificate of Acceptance and translation, Divorce Certificate with authentications, Manila registry certification, and the English translation of Part IV and V of the Japanese Civil Code. The trial court admitted the evidence and granted recognition, while the Court of Appeals reversed upon finding only photocopies authenticated by the Department of Foreign Affairs, absence of a Japanese court decree, and insufficient proof of the relevant Japanese law on divorce by agreement.

• Fact of Divorce: Petitioner maintained that she had proven the fact of divorce between her and Ayahiro through the Divorce Certificate and the Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce, duly presented and formally offered during trial and weighed for admissibility and relevance without objection from anyone.
• Compliance with Section 24, Rule 132: Petitioner defended the trial court's decision and maintained that presentation of the Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce and the Divorce Certificate, both authenticated by the DFA, complied with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Remand and Substantial Justice: Petitioner argued that any perceived insufficiency in proof of Japanese law warranted remand to the trial court to afford a chance to adduce additional evidence, asserting that she remained shackled to a marriage from which her foreign spouse had already been freed.

• Non-Proof of Foreign Judgment: Respondent countered that the trial court erred in finding the evidence sufficient, since petitioner merely presented a photocopy of the Divorce Certificate certified by the Japanese Embassy in Manila and the Civil Registrar of Manila, in violation of Section 24, Rule 132, and failed to present a Japanese court-issued divorce decree or judgment for a divorce obtained by mutual agreement.
• Non-Proof of Japanese Law: Respondent argued that petitioner failed to prove the relevant Japanese laws on divorce and to properly authenticate any proof thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court, the excerpt provisions presented being not fully instructive of the nature and legal effects of divorce by agreement.
• Improper Prior Registration: Respondent argued through the Office of the Solicitor General that registration of the Divorce Certificate with the Local Civil Registrar of Manila before judicial recognition was a mischievous ingenuity that was unjustified and legally improper.

• Proof of Foreign Divorce as Fact: Whether a divorce by mutual agreement in Japan, without a Japanese court-issued decree, was sufficiently proved as a fact through the authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce and Divorce Certificate for recognition under paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code.
• Proof of Japanese Divorce Law: Whether the relevant Japanese law on divorce by agreement was sufficiently pleaded and proved as a fact to allow application of paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code.

• Proof of Foreign Divorce as Fact: Yes. Divorce by mutual agreement under Japanese law was sufficiently proved by the authenticated Certificate of Acceptance and Divorce Certificate, admissible as written acts of a foreign official body absent proper objection.
• Proof of Japanese Divorce Law: Yes. The authenticated English translation of the Japanese Civil Code, particularly Article 763 allowing divorce by agreement with its consequences on custody, surname, property and succession, sufficiently proved the pertinent foreign law.

• Proof of Foreign Divorce as Fact: Recognition requires proof of the foreign judgment as a fact under Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132. Japanese laws allow divorce by mutual agreement, so no court decree was required, and the Divorce Certificate supported by the Certificate of Acceptance, authenticated by the Japanese Embassy in Manila and the DFA and recorded in Manila, constituted the best evidence of divorce. The State did not question the existence of these documents or the fact of divorce, rendering them admissible as written acts of a foreign official body where the opposing party failed to properly object, pursuant to Republic vs. Manalo.
• Proof of Japanese Divorce Law: Foreign laws cannot be judicially noticed and must be alleged and proved by the party invoking divorce, but courts must give leeway and relax procedure to dispense substantial justice. The English translation of the Civil Code of Japan, Act No. 89 of 1896, as amended, with notarial and Ministry of Foreign Affairs legalization and authentication by the Philippine Vice Consul in Tokyo, expressly provides in Article 763 that husband and wife may divorce by agreement and in Articles 766 to 769 addresses custody, reversion of surname, distribution of property, and succession of rights. Deemed sufficient as to nature and legal effects, it paved the way for paragraph 2, Article 26, consistent with liberality granted in mixed-marriage recognition cases.

• Recognition of foreign divorce under paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code — Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad capacitating the alien spouse to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. Applied to capacitate petitioner after a valid Japanese divorce by mutual agreement freed her Japanese husband.
• Foreign law as fact requiring proof — Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws; like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved by the party invoking them, with the burden on the party raising divorce to prove the pertinent foreign law and the former spouse's capacity to remarry. Applied to require, and then find sufficient, petitioner's authenticated translation of the Japanese Civil Code.
• Proof of foreign official records — The record of a public document of a foreign country may be evidenced by an official publication or by a copy attested by the officer having legal custody, accompanied, if not kept in the Philippines, by a certificate of custody made by specified Philippine foreign service officers and authenticated by seal. Applied liberally to admit the Certificate of Acceptance and Divorce Certificate authenticated through the Japanese Embassy and DFA, unobjected to by the State.
• Substantial justice and liberality in recognition cases — Procedural rules are designed to secure and not override substantial justice, and courts should give all leeway to petitioners in mixed marriages to prove divorce, even relaxing rules where no institution remains to protect and strictness would leave the Filipino spouse bound while the alien is freed. Applied to reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate recognition despite technical objections to authentication and form.

• "Finally, the Court has, time and again, held that the court's primary duty is to dispense justice; and procedural rules are designed to secure and not to override substantial justice." — States the guiding principle for relaxing procedural rules in recognition of foreign divorce cases affecting family life.
• "Marriage, being a mutual and shared commitment between two parties, cannot possibly be productive of any good to the society where one is considered released from the marital bond while the other remains bound to it." — Articulates the substantive rationale for paragraph 2, Article 26, against discriminating against the Filipino spouse in a mixed marriage already legally broken abroad.
• "It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved" — Defines the burden of proving Japanese divorce law as fact, cited from Republic vs. Manalo to frame the evidentiary requirement.
• "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 have capacity to remarry under Philippine law." — Quotes the controlling statutory text of paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code applied to grant capacity to remarry.

• Moraña vs. Republic, 867 Phil. 578, 595 (2019) — Followed as apropos for dispensing substantial justice and relaxing procedural rules in recognition cases where no marital institution remains to protect and strict enforcement would perpetuate an already broken bond.
• Republic vs. Manalo, 831 Phil. 33 (2018) — Followed as controlling on paragraph 2, Article 26, holding that the Filipino spouse should not be discriminated against, that foreign divorce must be proved as fact, that Japanese law must still be proved with burden on the proponent, and that unobjected divorce reports and certificates are admissible as acts of a foreign official body.
• Kondo vs. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 223628, March 4, 2020 — Followed to emphasize liberality in recognizing foreign decrees for Filipinos in mixed marriages to free them from marriages where they are the sole remaining party, with procedure yielding to substantial justice.

• Paragraph 2, Article 26, Family Code — Provides capacity to remarry for the Filipino spouse where a valid mixed marriage is followed by a valid foreign divorce capacitating the alien spouse to remarry; applied to recognize petitioner's Japanese divorce by agreement and declare her capacitated to remarry.
• Section 24, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Governs proof of foreign official records by official publication or attested copy with custody certificate from specified Philippine foreign service officers; applied, as liberally construed, to the Certificate of Acceptance and Divorce Certificate authenticated via the Japanese Embassy and DFA.
• Section 25, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Requires attestation to state in substance that the copy is a correct copy of the original or part thereof under official seal; applied together with Section 24 in evaluating admissibility of the divorce documents.
• Articles 763-769, 770-771, Civil Code of Japan (Act No. 89 of 1896, as amended) — Article 763 allows husband and wife to divorce by agreement, with succeeding articles governing custody, surname reversion, property distribution, and succession, and Articles 770-771 governing judicial divorce; applied to find the nature and legal effects of divorce by agreement sufficiently proved.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), M. Lopez, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred, with no separate concurring opinion discussed in the text.