11/9/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
In her Reply,[32] petitioner asserts that she submitted in evidence the Civil Code of
Japan as an official publication printed "under authorization of the Ministry of Justice[.]"
[33] She contends that because it was printed by a public authority, the Civil Code of
Japan is deemed to be an official publication under Rule 131, Section 3(gg) of the Rules
of Court and, therefore, is a self-authenticating document that need not be certified
under Rule 132, Section 24.[34]
In its August 3, 2016 Resolution,[35] this Court resolved to dispense with the filing of
respondent Tetsushi's Comment. In addition, the parties were required to file their
respective memoranda.
In her Memorandum,[36] petitioner reiterates that the Regional Trial Court erred in not
considering the Civil Code of Japan as an official publication and its English translation
as a learned treatise.[37]
On September 23, 2016, respondents manifested that they are adopting their
Comment as their memorandum.[38]
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in
denying the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of
capacity to remarry filed by petitioner Genevieve Rosal Arreza a.k.a. Genevieve Arreza
Toyo.
When a Filipino and an alien get married, and the alien spouse later acquires a valid
divorce abroad, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to remarry provided that the
divorce obtained by the foreign spouse enables him or her to remarry. Article 26 of the
Family Code, as amended,[39] provides:
ARTICLE 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance
with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid
there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited
under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
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. (Emphasis supplied)
The second paragraph was introduced as a corrective measure to resolve an absurd
situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse even after their
marital bond had been severed by the divorce decree obtained abroad.[40] Through this
provision, Philippine courts are given the authority "to extend the effect of a foreign
divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of
the dissolution of the marriage."[41] It bestowed upon the Filipino spouse a substantive
right to have his or her marriage considered dissolved, granting him or her the capacity
to remarry.[42]
Nonetheless, settled is the rule that in actions involving the recognition of a foreign
divorce judgment, it is indispensable that the petitioner prove not only the foreign
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65383
3/11