11/9/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
On the day of the hearing, no one appeared to oppose the Petition. After the
jurisdictional requirements were established and marked, trial on the merits ensued.
[15]
On February 14, 2014, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Judgment[16] denying
Genevieve's Petition. It decreed that while the pieces of evidence presented by
Genevieve proved that their divorce agreement was accepted by the local government
of Japan,[17] she nevertheless failed to prove the copy of Japan's law.[18]
The Regional Trial Court noted that the copy of the Civil Code of Japan and its English
translation submitted by Genevieve were not duly authenticated by the Philippine
Consul in Japan, the Japanese Consul in Manila, or the Department of Foreign Affairs.
[19]
Aggrieved, Genevieve filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied in the
Regional Trial Court's June 11, 2014 Resolution.[20]
Thus, Genevieve filed before this Court the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.[21]
Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in not treating the English translation of the
Civil Code of Japan as an official publication in accordance with Rule 131, Section 3(gg)
of the Rules of Court. That it is an official publication, she points out, makes it a selfauthenticating evidence of Japan's law under Rule 132, Section 25 of the Rules of
Court.[22]
Petitioner further contends that the trial court erred in not considering the English
translation of the Japan Civil Code as a learned treatise and in refusing to take judicial
notice of its authors' credentials.[23]
In its August 13, 2014 Resolution,[24] this Court required respondents to file their
comment.
In their Comment,[25] respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General,
maintain that the Regional Trial Court was correct in denying the petition for petitioner's
failure to prove respondent Tetsushi's national law.[26] They stress that in proving a
foreign country's law, one must comply with the requirements under Rule 132, Sections
24 and 25 of the Rules of Court.[27]
Respondents similarly claim that what Rule 131, Section 3(gg) of the Rules of Court
presumes is "the fact of printing and publication[,]"[28] not that it was an official
publication by the government of Japan.[29]
Finally, respondents insist that before the English translation of the Japan Civil Code
may be considered as a learned treatise, the trial court must first take judicial notice
that the writer is recognized in his or her profession as an expert in the subject.[30]
In its March 25, 2015 Resolution,[31] this Court directed petitioner to file her reply.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65383
2/11