On December 19, 2011, Racho filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari [19] with this Court. In its January 18, 2012 Resolution, this Court deferred action on her Petition pending her submission of a duly authenticated acceptance certificate of the notification of divorce.[20] Petitioner initially submitted a Manifestation,[21] stating that a duly-authenticated acceptance certificate was not among the documents presented at the Regional Trial Court because of its unavailability to petitioner during trial. She also pointed out that the Divorce Certificate issued by ,the Consulate General of the Japanese Embassy was sufficient proof of the fact of divorce.[22] She also manifested that Tanaka had secured a marriage license on the basis of the same Divorce Certificate and had already remarried another Filipino. Nevertheless, she has endeavored to secure the document as directed by this Court.[23] On March 16, 2012, petitioner submitted her Compliance,[24] attaching a duly authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce that she obtained in Japan. [25] The Office of the Solicitor General thereafter submitted its Comment[26] on the Petition, to which petitioner submitted her Reply.[27] Petitioner argues that under the Civil Code of Japan, a divorce by agreement becomes effective upon notification, whether oral or written, by both parties and by two (2) or more witnesses. She contends that the Divorce Certificate stating "Acceptance Certification of Notification of Divorce issued by the Mayor of Fukaya City, Saitama Pref., Japan on December 16, 2009" is sufficient to prove that she and her husband have divorced by agreement and have already effected notification of the divorce.[28] She avers further that under Japanese law, the manner of proving a divorce by agreement is by record of its notification and by the fact of its acceptance, both of which were stated in the Divorce Certificate. She maintains that the Divorce Certificate is signed by Consul Takayama, whom the Department of Foreign Affairs certified as duly appointed and qualified to sign the document. She also states that the Divorce Certificate has already been filed and recorded with the Civil Registry Office of Manila.[29] She insists that she is now legally capacitated to marry since Article 728 of the Civil Code of Japan states that a matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce.[30] On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General posits that the Certificate of Divorce has no probative value since it was not properly authenticated under Rule 132, Section 24 [31] of the Rules of Court. However, it states that it has no objection to the admission of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce submitted by petitioner in compliance with this Court's January 18, 2012 Resolution. [32] It likewise points out that petitioner never mentioned that she and her husband obtained a divorce by agreement and only mentioned it in her motion for reconsideration before the Regional Trial Court. Thus, petitioner failed to prove that she is now capacitated to marry since her divorce was not obtained by the alien spouse. She also failed to point to a specific provision in the Civil Code of Japan that allows persons who obtained a divorce by agreement the capacity to remarry. In any case, a divorce by agreement is not the divorce contemplated in Article 26 of the Family Code.[33] In rebuttal, petitioner insists that all her evidence, including the Divorce Certificate, was formally offered and held to be admissible as evidence by the Regional Trial Court. [34] She also argues that the Office of the Solicitor General should not have concluded that the law does not contemplate divorce by agreement or consensual divorce since a discriminatory situation will arise if this type of divorce is not recognized. [35] The issue in this case, initially, was whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in dismissing the Petition for Declaration of Capacity to Marry for insufficiency of evidence. After the submission of Comment, however, the issue has evolved to whether or not the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is sufficient to prove the fact that a divorce between petitioner Rhodora Ilumin Racho and respondent Seiichi Tanaka was validly obtained by the latter according to his national law. I Under Article 26 of the Family Code, a divorce between a foreigner and a Filipino may be recognized in the Philippines as long as it was validly obtained according to the foreign spouse's national law, thus: