4/6/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Foremost, the RTC held that while the Court, in Fujiki v. Marinay,[11] ruled that the recognition of a foreign divorce decree may be made in a special proceeding, the use of the permissive word "may" was intentional so as not to foreclose the option of seeking such recognition through a special civil action for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, as in the case of Republic v. Orbecido III[12] (Orbecido).[13] Expounding further, the RTC held that since there are no specific rules governing petitions for recognition of foreign divorce, it applied by analogy Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court (Rules) which requires personal actions to be filed at the place where either the plaintiff or defendant resides.[14] In addition, the RTC found that the requisites for the application of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code [Article 26(2)] concur. First, there was a valid marriage celebrated between Cynthia and Park, as shown by the Certificate of Marriage issued by the National Statistics Office.[15] Second, a valid divorce was obtained abroad by Park capacitating him to remarry, as shown by the Certification[16] issued by the Cheongju Local Court stating that he and Cynthia were divorced on July 16, 2012. While the RTC recognized that the divorce decree in question was obtained by mutual agreement, it ruled that such fact does not preclude its recognition in this jurisdiction since the testimony of Abigail Galapon (Abigail) confirms that Park merely coerced Cynthia to agree to the divorce.[17] Not satisfied, the OSG appealed to the CA via Rule 41. CA Ruling On February 27, 2017, the CA issued the assailed Decision[18] granting the OSG's appeal, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant [a]ppeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated [July 3, 2015] and Resolution dated [March 17, 2016] issued by Branch 88, [RTC] of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, [are] REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Petition filed by [Cynthia] is hereby DISMISSED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.[19] The CA found no merit in the OSG's contention that the RTC erred when it acted on the Recognition Petition since venue was improperly laid. While Section 1, Rule 108 requires petitions for judicial recognition of foreign divorce decrees to be filed with the RTC where the civil entry of the marriage in question is registered, the CA held that courts cannot motu proprio dismiss an action on the ground of improper venue.[20] Hence, the CA found that the RTC did not err in taking cognizance of the Recognition Petition since the OSG failed to move for its dismissal on the ground of improper venue at the first instance.[21] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65987 3/10