Upon appeal to this Court, however, petitioner submitted a Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of
Divorce,[48] certifying that the divorce issued by Susumu Kojima, Mayor of Fukaya City, Saitama Prefecture, has been
accepted on December 16, 2009. The seal on the document was authenticated by Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular
Service Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan.[49]
The probative value of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is a question of fact that would not
ordinarily be within this Court's ambit to resolve. Issues in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court[50] are limited to questions of law.
In Garcia and Corpuz, this Court remanded the cases to the Regional Trial Courts for the reception of evidence and
for further proceedings.[51] More recently in Medina v. Koike,[52] this Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals
to determine the national law of the foreign spouse:
Well entrenched is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. The resolution of factual issues is the function of the
lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect and are in fact binding subject to certain
exceptions. In this regard, it is settled that appeals taken from judgments or final orders rendered by RTC in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction raising questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law should be brought to the
Court of Appeals (CA) in accordance with Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
Nonetheless, despite the procedural restrictions on Rule 45 appeals as above-adverted, the Court may refer the case
to the CA under paragraph 2, Section 6 of Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 6. Disposition of improper appeal. - . . .
An appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from the Regional Trial Court submitting issues of fact may be
referred to the Court of Appeals for decision or appropriate action. The determination of the Supreme Court on
whether or not issues of fact are involved shall be final.[53]
The court records, however, are already sufficient to fully resolve the factual issues. [54] Additionally, the Office of the
Solicitor General neither posed any objection to the admission of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of
Divorce[55] nor argued that the Petition presented questions of fact. In the interest of judicial economy and efficiency,
this Court shall resolve this case on its merits.
IV
Under Rule 132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court, the admissibility of official records that are kept in a foreign country
requires that it must be accompanied by a certificate from a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice consul, consular agent or any officer of the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in that foreign
country:
Section 24. Proof of official record. - The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when
admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer
having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines,
with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the
certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular
agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is
kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was accompanied by an Authentication [56] issued by Consul
Bryan Dexter B. Lao of the Embassy of the Philippines in Tokyo, Japan, certifying that Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular
Service Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan was an official in and for Japan. The Authentication further
certified that he was authorized to sign the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce and that his signature in
it was genuine. Applying Rule 132, Section 24, the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is admissible as
evidence of the fact of divorce between petitioner and respondent.
The Regional Trial Court established that according to the national law of Japan, a divorce by agreement "becomes
effective by notification."[57] Considering that the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was duly