5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly While it has been ruled that a petition for the authority to remarry filed before a trial court actually constitutes a petition for declaratory relief,[11] we are still unable to grant the prayer of petitioner. As held by the RTC, there appears to be insufficient proof or evidence presented on record of both the national law of her first husband, Kobayashi, and of the validity of the divorce decree under that national law. [12] Hence, any declaration as to the validity of the divorce can only be made upon her complete submission of evidence proving the divorce decree and the national law of her alien spouse, in an action instituted in the proper forum. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED without prejudice to petitioner’s recourse to the proper remedies available. SO ORDERED. Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Perez, and *Mendoza, JJ., concur. * Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Pelas-Bernabe per S.O. No. 1754 dated 18 August 2014. [1] The Petition before the RTC was initially raffled to Branch 46, but was later transferred to Branch 45. [2] Rollo, pp. 10-12. [3] Id. at 38-39. [4] Id. at 52-53. [5] Id. at 60. [6] Id. at 31-32. [7] Petitioner’s Reply, rollo, p. 138. [8] Id. [9] 418 Phil. 723 (2001). [10] Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, 11 August 2010, 628 SCRA 266. [11] Republic v. Orbecido III, 509 Phil. 108 (2005). [12] Rollo, pp. 52 and 31. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57529 7/8