Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas and Sol Gen G.R. No.

186571, 11 August 2010

FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking a direct appeal from the decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Laoag City. Petitioner Gerbert R. Corpus is a naturalized
Canadian citizen who married respondent Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas but subsequently
left for Canada due to work and other professional commitments. When he returned to
the Philippines, he discovered that Sto. Tomas was already romantically involved with
another man. This brought about the filing of a petition for divorce by Corpuz in Canada
which was eventually granted by the Court Justice of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. A
month later, the divorce decree took effect. Two years later, Corpuz has fallen in love
with another Filipina and wished to marry her. He went to Civil Registry Office of Pasig
City to register the Canadian divorce decree of his marriage certificate with Sto. Tomas.
However, despite the registration, an official of National Statistics Office informed
Corpuz that the former marriage still subsists under the Philippine law until there has
been a judicial recognition of the Canadian divorce by a competent judicial court in view
of NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982. Consequently, he filed a petition for judicial
recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of dissolution of marriage with the RTC.
However, the RTC denied the petition reasoning out that Corpuz cannot institute the
action for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree because he is a naturalized
Canadian citizen. It was provided further that Sto. Tomas was the proper party who can
institute an action under the principle of Article 26 of the Family Code which capacitates
a Filipino citizen to remarry in case the alien spouse obtains a foreign divorce decree.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code grants aliens like
Corpuz the right to institute a petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
HELD:
Petition GRANTED. RTC Decision REVERSED.
The foreign divorce decree is presumptive evidence of a right that clothes the
party with legal interest to petition for its recognition in this jurisdiction
We qualify our above conclusion i.e., that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the
Family Code bestows no rights in favor of aliens with the complementary
statement that this conclusion is not sufficient basis to dismiss Gerberts petition
before the RTC.In other words, the unavailability of the second paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal
interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The

foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity with the aliens
national law have been duly proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as
a presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48, Rule
39 of the Rules of Court which provides for the effect of foreign judgments.
A remand, at the same time, will allow other interested parties to oppose the foreign
judgment and overcome a petitioners presumptive evidence of a right by proving want
of jurisdiction, want of notice to a party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
Needless to state, every precaution must be taken to ensure conformity with our laws
before a recognition is made, as the foreign judgment, once recognized, shall have the
effect of res judicata between the parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court.