4/20/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Aggrieved, Edna assailed the trial court's Resolution[16] dated June 30, 2014 before the Court of Appeals. In her Brief,[17] she faulted the trial court for (1) not allowing her to introduce evidence to prove Katsuhiro's subsequent marriage and (2) finding that Article 26 (2) of the Family Code was inapplicable simply because the divorce was obtained by mutual agreement. Meanwhile, the OSG through Assistant Solicitor General Eric Remegio O. Panga and Senior State Solicitor Maricar S.A. Prudon-Sison defended the trial court's ruling.[18] It argued that the second Report of Divorce cannot be considered "newly discovered" and the evidence on record was not sufficient to warrant the grant of Edna's petition. The Court of Appeals' Ruling Through its Decision[19] dated March 16, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It emphasized that Rule 37, Section 2 (2) of the Rules of Court required supporting evidence by way of affidavits of witnesses or duly authenticated documents. But Edna appended a mere photocopy of Katsuhiro's records and asked for relaxation of technical rules. Too, the Court of Appeals did not consider the second Report of Divorce as newly discovered evidence as Edna could have easily presented it during the trial. Despite the trial court's earlier Order dated December 3, 2013 allowing Edna to present additional evidence, she still failed to adduce the necessary documents in support of her case. Be that as it may, it disagreed with the trial court's ruling on the supposed inapplicability of Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, citing the rationale behind the law it is a corrective measure to prevent the anomalous situation where the foreign spouse is free to contract a subsequent marriage while the Filipino spouse cannot do so. The Present Appeal Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief from the Court for the disposition of the Court of Appeals to be reversed and the case remanded to the trial court.[20] She, too, begs the indulgence of the Court to allow her to present additional evidence to establish her case. Petitioner admits to lapses on her part due to logistical and financial difficulties. She claims that although the divorce and remarriage took place in 2000 and 2001, respectively, it was only in November 2012 when she secured the adequate financial capacity to institute the petition before the trial court. Hence, the delayed acquisition and presentation of documentary evidence. In its Comment,[21] the OSG maintains that the appeal does not raise a question of law. More, the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the denial of Edna's Motion for New Trial as the second Report of Divorce was not newly discovered evidence within the contemplation of the Rules of Court. Although it agrees with the rulings of the courts below, the OSG submits to the Court's sound discretion on the possibility of relaxing the rules, considering Edna's predicament. Further, the denial of a petition for recognition of foreign judgment https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66091 4/11