4/20/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the reception of additional evidence, citing no objection on the part of the State.[11] On the other hand, the Republic did not present its own evidence. Thus, the case was submitted for decision. The Trial Court's Ruling By Decision[12] dated April 10, 2014, the trial court denied the petition, viz: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the relief sought by the petitioner is DENIED. The above-captioned petition is DISMISSED. Following Section 9 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court and considering publication was required by this court in is Order dated December 18, 2012, counsel for petitioner is directed to cause the publication of this Decision in a newspaper of general circulation once within a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Decision. Let copy of this Decision be sent to petitioner as well as to her counsel for their information and guidance. SO ORDERED. It noted that under Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, the foreign divorce should have been obtained by the alien spouse, not by mutual agreement, as here. More, the provisions of the Japanese Civil Code, as presented to the trial court, did not show that Katsuhiro was allowed to remarry upon obtaining a divorce. On May 20, 2014, Edna filed a Motion for New Trial,[13] alleging she had newly discovered evidence which could alter the result of the case - a copy of Katsuhiro's Report of Divorce, allegedly indicating that he had already married a certain Tsukiko Umegaki. She requested for thirty (30) days to secure a duly authenticated English copy of the document to prove its contents. She emphasized that an absurd situation would occur if the trial court would not admit the second Report of Divorce to prove Katsuhiro's second marriage. For she would still be deemed married to Katsuhiro even though he had already remarried on May 30, 2001. By Resolution[14] dated June 30, 2014, the RTC denied Edna's Motion for New Trial for failure to file an Affidavit of Merit, as required under Rule 37, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.[15] Further, the Report of Divorce was not sufficient to establish that Katsuhiro contracted a subsequent marriage, unauthenticated as it was. Her failure to present a duly authenticated copy during trial was by no means excusable. As for the applicability of Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, the trial court ruled that Edna's divorce from Katsuhiro was by mere agreement and, therefore, beyond the coverage of the provision, which requires the divorce to have been obtained by the foreign spouse. Proceedings before the Court of Appeals https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66091 3/11