Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7th Judicial Region
Branch 12
Cebu City

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION

FOR CORRECTION AND/OR
CANCELLATION OF THE
MARRIAGE CONTRACT OF
SPOUSES RALPH RODULFUS
GONZALES AND MARY ELLEN
GONZALES, BEARING REGISTER
NO. 2000-881 FOR CEBU CITY,
THROUGH AN ANNOTATION OF A
FOREIGN DIVORCE DECREE.

RALPH RODULFUS GONZALES,

through his attorneys-in-fact, ATTY.
YNA TRISHA MARIE DEL ROSARIO,
Petitioner,
SP Proc Case No.:
x---------------------------------------------/ R-CEB-19-0011-SP

MARY ELLEN GONZALES, the

LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF CEBU
CITY, and the CIVIL REGISTRAR
GENERAL of the Philippines,
Respondents.

x---------------------------------------------/

DECISION
PASAR, J:

This is a petition praying that an Order be issued directing the Local Civil
Registrar of Cebu City and the Civil Registrar General to record the Decree Granting
Absolute Divorce issued by the FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT OF
THE STATE OF HAWAII dated November 15, 2011.

THE FACTS
Petitioner Ralph Rodulfus Gonzales (“Ralph”) is an Filipino citizen, of legal age, and
a resident of 216 St. Peter’s Village, Brgy. Talamban, Cebu City. Respondent MARY
ELLEN GONZALES (“Mary”) is an American citizen who was formerly a natural-
born Filipino, of legal age, and a resident of 1435 Seabreeze St. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Page 1 of 9
 The couple got married on 03 October 2000 at Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Branch 3 Cebu City. As a result of their union, the couple were blessed with two (2)
children, namely: Leana Rae Gonzales, born on March 24, 2004, and Carlo Andrew
Gonzales, born on September 15, 2005. Mary acquired American citizenship through
naturalization on 17 August 1995. On the year June, 2001 Mary migrated to America
ahead of her family. Ralph followed Mary on November, 2001.

While in America, the couple’s relationship turned sour. Unfortunately, the

situation could not be worked out, so that on the year 2010, Ralph applied for divorce
with the Family Court of the First Circuit of the State of Hawaii, USA, which was
docketed in the as FC-D No. 10-1-0259. The divorce was granted on 15 November
2011, based on the Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 580, Family Law, Part III, Divorce,
Sections 580-41 through 580-56.

The petitioner filed the present petition for the correction and/or cancellation
of the Marriage Contract of Spouses Ralph and Mary bearing Register No. 2000-881
for Cebu City, through the annotation of the “Decree Granting Absolute Divorce
and Awarding Child Custody” (FC-D No. 10-1-0259) issued by the Family Court of
the First Circuit of the State of Hawaii dated 15 November 2011.

THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT

Whether or not to grant a petition for the correction and/or cancellation of the
Marriage Contract of Spouses Ralph and Mary through the annotation of the “Decree
Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody” (FC-D No. 10-1-0259)
issued by the Family Court of the First Circuit of the State of Hawaii dated 15
November 2011?

THE COURT’S RULING

The petition is meritorious on the following grounds:

I. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former is

allowed to contract a subsequent marriage in case the absolute divorce is validly
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.

II. The petition is an action in rem and therefore any decision thereto is
binding upon the whole world.

III. The petitioner seeks to have the fact of his divorce, which was already
granted in Hawaii, as recognized in this jurisdiction. Thus, the special
proceeding found in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is proper.

IV. The Petition should be granted because the requisites under Rule 108
of the Rules of Court have all been

I. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former is allowed

to contract a subsequent marriage in case the absolute divorce is validly
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.
Page 2 of 9
 In Morisono v. Morisono, the Supreme Court laid down the rules on divorce
in the Philippines, as follows:

The rules on divorce prevailing in this jurisdiction can be summed up as

follows: first, Philippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce, and
hence, the courts cannot grant the same; second, consistent with Articles
15 and 17 of the Civil Code, the marital bond between two (2) Filipino
citizens cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce obtained
abroad; third, an absolute divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are
both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is
consistent with their respective national laws; and fourth, in mixed
marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former is
allowed to contract a subsequent marriage in case the absolute
divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
him or her to remarry.1

The rationale behind the rule recognizing a divorce decree obtained abroad in
relation to mixed marriages is “to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse
remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married
to the Filipino spouse.”2 The application of this rule extends to a marriage between
Filipino citizens when one or both of them becomes a naturalized citizen since “[t]he
reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the
marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating the latter to remarry.”3

Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr, that:

To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner

has to be considered still married to private respondent and still subject
to a wife's obligations under Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code cannot
be just. Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe
respect and fidelity, and render support to private respondent. The latter
should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to
conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own
country if the ends of justice are to be served.4

Given the intent behind the rule, the petition should be granted. First, there was
a valid divorce decree obtained abroad capacitating the alien spouse to remarry. At the
time, the divorce decree was obtained, Mary was already a naturalized American citizen.
Second, recognizing the effects of the valid divorce decree would best serve the ends
of justice as this would prevent the absurd situation where the married status of the
Filipino spouse remains under Philippine law, together with all its legal consequences
while the Alien spouse is no longer married under foreign law.

1
Morisono v. Morisono, G.R. No. 226013, July 2, 2018.
2
Republic v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005.
3
Id.
4
Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985.
Page 3 of 9
II. The petition is an action in rem and therefore any decision thereto is binding
upon the whole world.

The decree sought to be recognized and subject to this case is a divorce decree
issued by the Court of Hawaii between petitioner Ralph Gonzalez and Mary Iway-
Gonzalez. The divorce decree effectively unshackled the marriage between the former
spouses. Ms. Iway, formerly a Filipino, went to the U.S seeking for greener pastures.
When she was able to acquire a naturalized citizenship status, she caused petitioner
Gonzalez to follow suit. It was the aggressive pursuance of her American dream that
brought the relationship to an unfortunate end. Where a harmonious marriage can no
longer be worked out, the couple decided to end the same. During cross, petitioner
admits that he filed for the divorce. A ruling freshly penned in 2018 clarified as to the
recognition and enforcement of a foreign divorce decree when initiated by the Filipino
spouse. The Supreme Court ruled:

When this Court recognized a foreign divorce decree that was initiated
and obtained by the Filipino spouse and extended its legal effects on the
issues of child custody and property relation, it should not stop short in
likewise acknowledging that one of the usual and necessary consequences
of absolute divorce is the right to remarry. Indeed, there is no longer a
mutual obligation to live together and observe fidelity. When the marriage
tie is severed and ceased to exist, the civil status and the domestic relation
of the former spouses change as both of them are freed from the marital
bond.5

Hence, despite being filed by Gonzalez who is a Filipino, the divorce decree may be
legally recognized and effected within oue jurisdiction.

III. The petitioner seeks to have the fact of his divorce, which was already
granted in Hawaii, as recognized in this jurisdiction. Thus, the special
proceeding found in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is proper.

Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court is the appropriate action for this case.

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Corpuz v Sto. Tomas, viz;

“The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108
proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings is precisely to
establish the status or the right of a party or a particular fact. Moreover,
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the appropriate adversarial
proceedings by which the applicability of the foreign judgment can be
measured and tested in terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice
to the party, collusion, fraud or clear mistake of laws or fact.”6

Petitioners obtained a divorce abroad, the decision rendered by the State of

5
People v Manalo, GR 221029 (24 April 2018)
6
Corpus v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010.
Page 4 of 9
Hawaii has altered their marital status and has vested in them a new set of obligations
and rights. Petitioner Gonzales seeks to have said decision recognized so as to be able
to exercise certain rights available to a person who is no longer married.The petition
for recognition of foreign judgement should be granted under Rule 108.
Under existing rules, laws and judgements of foreign jurisdictions are not subject
to the court’s judicial notice and must be alleged and proved like any other fact. As
such, a petition for recognition of foreign judgement must be availed of in a proper
adversarial proceeding in order to test the existence and validity of said foreign
judgement.
In the instant petition, the parties availed of the remedy for the recognition of
foreign judgement under Rule 108, a special proceeding. As a general rule, special
proceedings are summary in nature. However, “a special proceeding is not always
summary and the procedure laid down in Rule 108 is not a summary proceeding per
se.”7 The proceedings under Rule 108 may either be summary or adversarial depending
on the nature of the correction sought to be made. It is summary when the correction
sought to be made is merely clerical and it is adversarial when the correction affects the
civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party. In the latter case, the error is deemed
to be substantial and the procedure adopted becomes adversarial rather than a mere
summary proceeding.8

In Republic v. Valencia, the court ruled that “even substantial errors in a civil registry
may be corrected through a petition filed under Rule 108, with the true facts established
and the parties aggrieved by the error availing themselves of the appropriate adversarial
proceeding.”9

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. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the
appropriate adversarial proceeding by which the applicability of the foreign
judgement can be measured and tested in terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want
of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of fact or law.10

A proceeding is deemed to be an appropriate adversarial suit when “the trial court has
conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and properly developed,
where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the opposite party’s
case, and where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered.”11 Thus, in
Republic v. Olaybar, the court ruled in this wise:

The procedure laid down in Rule 108 is not a summary proceeding per se. It
requires publication of the petition; it mandates the inclusion as parties of all
persons who may claim interest which would be affected by the cancellation or

7
Republic v. Olaybar, G.R. No. 189538, February 10, 2014.
8
Gemy Lito L. Festin, Special Proceedings (A Foresight to The Bar Exam and The Practice of Law),
3rd ed (Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, Inc., 2015) at 352.
9
Republic v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-32181, March 5, 1986.
10
Festin, supra note 2, at 366.
11
Id. At 367.
Page 5 of 9
 correction; it also requires the civil registrar and any person in interest to file their
opposition, if any; and it states that although the court may make orders
expediting the proceedings, it is after hearing that the court shall either dismiss
the petition or issue an order granting the same. Thus, as long as the procedural
requirements in Rule 108 are followed, it is the appropriate adversary proceeding
to effect substantial corrections and changes in entries of the civil register.12

In the present case, it is not denied that the court has conducted the proper proceeding
wherein the parties were given the opportunity to present contradictory evidence and
to disprove the allegations of the adverse party. Hence, the case was an appropriate
adversarial proceeding. Furthermore, in order for the petition to prosper the rules
provide that all interested parties must be impleaded. In the instant case, the spouse
who is an interested party was properly impleaded.

Lastly, in the case of Fujiki v. Marinay, et al., the court emphasized that a petition for
correction or cancellation of entry cannot substitute an action to nullify a marriage as
the same would result to the circumvention of the substantive and procedural
safeguards of marriage under the Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related
laws.13

In other words, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve his marriage by the mere
expedient of changing his entry of marriage in the civil registry. However, this
does not apply in a petition for correction or cancellation of a civil registry entry
based on the recognition of a foreign judgment annulling a marriage where one
of the parties is a citizen of the foreign country. 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. The procedure in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in a petition to
recognize a foreign judgment annulling a bigamous marriage where one of the
parties is a citizen of the foreign country. Neither can R.A. No. 8369 define the
jurisdiction of the foreign court.14

IV. The Petition should be granted because the requisites under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court have all been complied with.

An important matter to take note is that the recognition of the foreign judgment
in itself does not in any way authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil registry.
A petition for recognition of a foreign judgment is not the proper proceeding,
contemplated under the Rules of Court, for the cancellation of entries in the civil
registry.15

12
Republic v. Olaybar, supra note 1.
13
Fujiki v. Marinay, et al., G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013.
14
Id.
15
Ibid.
Page 6 of 9
 A foreign judgment of divorce is a judicial decree which affects a person’s legal
capacity and status that must be recorded. In fact, Act No. 3753 or the Law on Registry
of Civil Status specifically requires the registration of divorce decrees in the civil
registry.16

Article 412 of the Civil Code provides that "no entry in a civil register shall be
changed or corrected, without judicial order." Supplementing Article 412 is Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court which focuses on the correction and/or cancellation of entries in
the civil registry. The rule sets in detail the jurisdictional and procedural requirements
that must be complied with before a judgment, authorizing the cancellation or
correction, may be annotated in the civil registry such as: 1.) the filing of a verified
petition with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located;
2.) that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest must be made
parties to the proceedings; 3.) and that the time and place for hearing must be published
in a newspaper of general circulation.17

The Petition should be granted because the requisites for the proceedings have
all been complied with.

First, the Rules require that the civil registrar and all interested parties be
impleaded. This requirement is complied with as can been seen in the face of the
Petition which impleads the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu and the Civil Registrar
General.

Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for the correction of
substantial changes in the civil registry through an appropriate adversary proceeding. 18
An adversary proceeding is defined as one "having opposing parties; contested, as
distinguished from an ex parte application, one of which the party seeking relief has
given legal warning to the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest
it."19

Sections 3, 4, and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court state:

SEC. 3. Parties. - When cancellation or correction of an entry

in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons
who have or claim any interest which would be affected
thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.

SEC. 4. Notice and publication. - Upon the filing of the

petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place
for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice
thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The
court shall also cause the order to be published once a week
for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province.

16
Id.
17
Id.
18
See Republic v. Mercadera, 652 Phil. 195, 210-211 (2010)
19
Republic v. Uy, 716 Phil. 254, 261 (2013
Page 7 of 9
 SEC. 5. Opposition. - The civil registrar and any person
having or claiming any interest under the entry whose
cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15)
days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of
publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.
(Emphases supplied)

A reading of Sections 4 and 5 shows that the Rule mandates two (2) sets of
notices to potential oppositors: one given to persons named in the petition, and another
given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be
considered interested or affected parties. 20Consequently, the petition for a substantial
correction of an entry in the civil registry should implead as respondents the civil
registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have any interest that would
be affected thereby.

In Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo, the Court emphasized that in a petition for a

substantial correction or change of entry in the civil registry under Rule 108, it is
mandatory that the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have
any interest that would be affected thereby be made respondents for the reason that
they are indispensable parties. Thus, the Court nullified the order to effect the necessary
changes for respondent's failure to strictly comply with the foregoing procedure laid
down in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Citing Labayo-Rowe v. Republic, the Court
held therein:

Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General, all other indispensable parties
should have been made respondents. They include not only the declared father of the
child but the child as well, together with the paternal grandparents, if any, as their
hereditary rights would be adversely affected thereby. All other persons who may be
affected by the change should be notified or represented. The truth is best ascertained
under an adversary system of justice.

In sum, the petitioner were able to comply with the above-discussed

requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for correction of an entry in the civil
registrar involving substantial and controversial alterations rendering the entire
proceedings valid because the proper parties to the case have been impleaded. 21

Second, it is mandatory that the Petition is filed before the court having
jurisdiction over the impleaded civil registrar and all interested parties. The Petition was
properly filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City as the civil registrar
impleaded is the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City.

Third, the Rules require that the order of hearing must be published once a week
for three consecutive weeks. This requisite is complied with as evidenced by the

20
Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo, 656 Phil. 550, 560 (2011
21
In the matter of the petition for correction of entry (change of family name in the birth certificate
of felipe c. Almojuela as appearing in the records of the national statistics office), felipe c. Almojuela
vs. Republic of the philippines, G.R. No. 211724, August 24. 2016
Page 8 of 9
Certificate of Publication and the newspaper clippings presented and marked during
Initial Hearing.

Fourth, the Rules require that the Civil Registrar and all parties affected must be
notified. This requisite is also complied with as evidenced by the Notice presented and
marked during Initial Hearing.

Lastly, the requirement of a full-blown trial is also complied with as evidenced

by the records of the case.

However, it shall not be construed that filing of two separate proceedings for the
registration of a foreign divorce decree in the civil registry – one for recognition of the
foreign decree and another specifically for cancellation of the entry under Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court is mandatory at all times. In Corpuz v Sto. Tomas22, the Court
enunciated that:

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. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can
serve as the appropriate adversarial proceeding by which the
applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured and
tested in terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice to
the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

Hence, the filing of only Rule 108 which is a special proceeding may be made as
it may include the determination of the applicability of the foreign judgment.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Camposano, Vilbar, Rivera, Fernandez, Ocampo, Balagasay, Cuizon , J., concur.

22
Corpuz v Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010.

Page 9 of 9