11/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 213198, July 01, 2019 ] GENEVIEVE ROSAL ARREZA, A.K.A. "GENEVIEVE ARREZA TOYO," PETITIONER, V. TETSUSHI TOYO, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE, RESPONDENTS. DECISION LEONEN, J.: Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. They must be proven as fact under our rules on evidence. A divorce decree obtained abroad is deemed a foreign judgment, hence the indispensable need to have it pleaded and proved before its legal effects may be extended to the Filipino spouse.[1] This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari[2] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Regional Trial Court's February 14, 2014 Judgment[3] and June 11, 2014 Resolution[4] in SP. PROC. No. Q-12-71339 be reversed and set aside. The Regional Trial Court denied Genevieve Rosal Arreza a.k.a. Genevieve Arreza Toyo's (Genevieve) Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry.[5] On April 1, 1991, Genevieve, a Filipino citizen, and Tetsushi Toyo (Tetsushi), a Japanese citizen, were married in Quezon City. They bore a child whom they named Keiichi Toyo. [6] After 19 years of marriage, the two filed a Notification of Divorce by Agreement, which the Mayor of Konohana-ku, Osaka City, Japan received on February 4, 2011. It was later recorded in Tetsushi's family register as certified by the Mayor of Toyonaka City, Osaka Fu.[7] On May 24, 2012, Genevieve filed before the Regional Trial Court a Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry.[8] In support of her Petition, Genevieve submitted a copy of their Divorce Certificate,[9] Tetsushi's Family Register,[10] the Certificate of Acceptance of the Notification of Divorce,[11] and an English translation of the Civil Code of Japan,[12] among others.[13] After finding the Petition sufficient in form and substance, the Regional Trial Court set the case for hearing on October 16, 2012.[14] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65383 1/11

Select target paragraph3