Corpuz vs. Sto.

Tomas and Sol Gen

Nature of the Case: Direct Appeal from RTC decision,
a petition for review on certiorari
FACTS: Petitioner was a former Filipino citizen who
acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization.
He was married to the respondent but was shocked of
the infidelity on the part of his wife. He went back to
Canada and filed a petition for divorce and was
granted. Desirous to marry another woman he now
loved, he registered the divorce decree in the Civil
Registry Office and was informed that the foreign
decree must first be judicially recognized by a
competent Philippine court. Petitioner filed for judicial
recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of
marriage as dissolved with the RTC where
respondent failed to submit any response. The RTC
denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner
lacked locus standi. Thus, this case was filed before
the Court.
ISSUES: WON the second paragraph of Art 26 of the
FC extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this
jurisdiction fro the recognition of a foreign divorce
decree.
HELD: The alien spouse cannot claim under the
second paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code
because the substantive right it establishes is in
favour of the Filipino spouse. Only the Filipino
spouse can invoke the second par of Art 26 of the
Family Code.
The unavailability of the second paragraph of Art 26 of
the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip
the petitioner of legal interest to petition the RTC for
the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The
petitioner, being a naturalized Canadian citizen now,
is clothed by the presumptive evidence of the
authenticity of foreign divorce decree with conformity
to aliens national law.
DAVID A. NOVERAS, Petitioner,
vs.
LETICIA T. NOVERAS, Respondent.
Facts:
David and Leticia Noveras are US citizens who
acquired properties in the USA and in the Philippines
during the marriage. They have 2 children. According
to Leticia, sometime in September 2003, David
abandoned his family and lived with his mistress.
Further, she claimed that they executed a joint
affidavit where he renounced all his rights and interest

in the conjugal and real properties situated in the

Philippines.
After learning of Davids extra-marital affair, Leticia
filed a petition for divorce before the Superior Court of
California. Divorce was granted and judgment was
duly entered on 29 June 2005. The California court
granted to Leticia the custody of her two children, as
well as all the couples properties in the USA.
Leticia then filed a petition for Judicial Separation of
Conjugal Property before the RTC of Baler, Aurora.
She relied on the 3 December 2003 Joint Affidavit and
Davids failure to comply with his obligation under the
same. David demanded that the conjugal partnership
properties, which also include the USA properties, be
liquidated since a divorce decree was already
entered.
The RTC regarded that since the parties are US
citizens, their marriage is hereby declared
DISSOLVED pursuant to the divorce decree. Thus,
the trial court considered the petition filed by Leticia
as one for liquidation of the absolute community of
property instead of an action for judicial separation of
conjugal property. Their property was classified as
absolute community because they did not execute
any marriage settlement before the solemnization of
their marriage pursuant to Article 75 of the Family
Code.
Then, the trial court ruled that in accordance with the
doctrine of processual presumption, Philippine law
should apply because the court cannot take judicial
notice of the US law since the parties did not submit
any proof of their national law. The court adjudicated
the Philippine properties to David subject to the
payment of the childrens legitimes.
On appeal, the CA modified the decision and directed
the equal division of the Philippine properties between
the spouses and both should pay their children the
amount of P520,000.00.
In the present petition, David insists that CA should
have recognized the California Judgment which
awarded the Philippine properties to him and allowing
Leticia to share in the Philippine properties is
tantamount to unjust enrichment considering that she
was already granted all US properties by the
California court.
Issues: 1. Whether the marriage between David and
Leticia has been dissolved pursuant to the divorce
decree issued by the Superior Court of California;

2. Whether the filing of the judicial separation of

property is proper in accordance with the Family Code
Held: 1. The trial court erred in recognizing the
divorce decree which severed the bond of marriage
between the parties. Foreign judgment and its
authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules
on evidence, together with the aliens applicable
national law to show the effect of the judgment on the
alien himself or herself. A copy of the foreign
judgment may be admitted in evidence and proven as
a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation
to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public
documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be
proved by: (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody
thereof. Such official publication or copy must be
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer
has the legal custody thereof. The certificate may be
issued by any of the authorized Philippine embassy or
consular officials stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept, and authenticated by the
seal of his office. The attestation must state, in
substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
original, or a specific part thereof, asthe case may be,
and must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer.
Section 25 of the same Rule states that whenever a
copy of a document or record is attested for the
purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in
substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may
be. The attestation must be under the official seal of
the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the
clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such
court.
Based on the records, only the divorce decree was
presented in evidence. The required certificates to
prove its authenticity, as well as the pertinent
California law on divorce were not presented. Even if
we
apply
the
doctrine
of
processual
presumption,divorce is not recognized between
Filipino citizens in the Philippines. Absent a valid
recognition of the divorce decree, it follows that the
parties are still legally married in the Philippines. The
trial court thus erred in proceeding directly to
liquidation.
2. Yes. Art 135 of the Family Code provides that: Any
of the following shall be considered sufficient cause
for judicial separation of property:

(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have

been separated in fact for at least one year and
reconciliation is highly improbable.
The records of this case are replete with evidence
that both parties had indeed separated for more than
a year and that reconciliation is highly improbable.
First, it is undisputed that the spouses had been living
separately since 2003 when David decided to go back
to the Philippines to set up his own business. Second,
Leticia heard from her friends that David has been
cohabiting with Estrellita Martinez, who represented
herself as Estrellita Noveras. Editha Apolonio, who
worked in the hospital where David was once
confined, testified that she saw the name of Estrellita
listed as the wife of David in the Consent for
Operation form. Third and more significantly, they had
filed for divorce and it was granted by the California
court in June 2005.
Having established that Leticia and David had actually
separated for at least one year, the petition for judicial
separation of absolute community of property should
be granted

MEROPE ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE CATALAN,

PETITIONER, VS. LOUELLA A. CATALAN-LEE,
RESPONDENT.
Facts: Orlando B. Catalan was a naturalized
American citizen. After obtaining a divorce in the
United States from his first wife, Felicitas Amor, he
contracted a second marriage with petitioner. On 18
November 2004, Orlando died intestate in the
Philippines.
on February 2005, petitioner filed a Petition for the
issuance of letters of administration for her
appointment as administratrix of the intestate estate
of Orlando. Respondent Louella A. Catalan-Lee, one
of the children of Orlando from his first marriage, filed
a similar petition.
The petitioner, armed with a marriage certificate, filed
her petition for letters of administration. However, a
marriage certificate, like any other public document, is
only prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein. The fact that the petitioner had been charged
with bigamy and was acquitted has not been disputed
by the petitioner. Thus, not being an interested party
and a stranger to the estate of Orlando B. Catalan.
The petitioner claims that the reasoning is illogical
stating that on the one hand, she was acquitted of
bigamy, while, on the other hand, still holding that her
marriage with Orlando was invalid.
Issue: W/N the CA must reconsider its decision in
issuing the letter of administration over the estate of
Orlando Catalan.

Ruling: The petition is hereby PARTIALLY

GRANTED. The Decision is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. It is imperative for the trial court to first
determine the validity of the divorce to ascertain the
rightful party to be issued the letters of administration
over the estate of Orlando B. Catalan.

FUJIKA VS. MARINAY

Facts:
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national
who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay
(Marinay) in the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The
marriage did not sit well with petitioners parents.
Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where
he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with each
other.
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi
Maekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage being
dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15
May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara
brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay
allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She
left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to
reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped
Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in
Japan which declared the marriage between Marinay
and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. On 14
January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC
entitled: Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or
Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage).
The decision of the lower courts (RTC): dismissed the
petition for "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment
(or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)" based on
improper venue and the lack of personality of
petitioner, Minoru Fujiki, to file the petition.
Issues:
1. Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity
of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable.
2. Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can
file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment
nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her
spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.
3. Whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the
foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or
correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court.
Held:
1. No. Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages
(A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to
recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of

a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a

foreign country. Moreover, in Juliano-Llave v.
Republic, this Court held that the rule in A.M. No. 0211-10-SC that only the husband or wife can file a
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage does
not apply if the reason behind the petition is
bigamy. While the Philippines has no divorce law, the
Japanese Family Court judgment is fully consistent
with Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages
are declared void from the beginning under Article
35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki
can prove the existence of the Japanese Family Court
judgment in accordance with Rule 132, Sections 24
and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the
Rules of Court.
2. Yes, the recognition of the foreign divorce decree
may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the
object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule
108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the
status or right of a party or a particular fact.Rule 108,
Section 1 of the Rules of Court states:
Sec.
1. Who
may
file
petition.
Any
person interested in any act, event, order or
decree concerning the civil status of persons which
has been recorded in the civil register, may file a
verified petition for the cancellation or correction of
any entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial
Court of the province where the corresponding civil
registry is located. (Emphasis supplied)
There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a
personal and material interest in maintaining the
integrity of the marriage he contracted and the
property relations arising from it.
3. Yes, there is neither circumvention of the
substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage
under Philippine law, nor of the jurisdiction of Family
Courts under R.A. No. 8369. A recognition of a foreign
judgment is not an action to nullify a marriage. It is an
action for Philippine courts to recognize the effectivity
of a foreign judgment, which presupposes a case
which was already tried and decided under foreign
law.
In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine
courts are incompetent to substitute their judgment on
how a case was decided under foreign law. They
cannot decide on the family rights and duties, or on
the status, condition and legal capacity of the foreign
citizen who is a party to the foreign judgment. Thus,
Philippine courts are limited to the question of
whether to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in
the Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the
status of a marriage involving a citizen of a foreign
country, Philippine courts only decide whether to
extend its effect to the Filipino party, under the rule
of lex nationalii expressed in Article 15 of the Civil
Code.

For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine

(1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with
an overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2)
whether any alleging party is able to prove an
extrinsic
ground
to
repel
the
foreign
judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to

the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or

fact. If there is neither inconsistency with public policy
nor adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine
courts should, by default, recognize the foreign
judgment as part of the comity of nations.