In this case, the Supreme Court of the Philippines recognized a foreign divorce decree and declared the petitioner single and able to remarry.
Ordaneza v. Republic, G.R. No. 254484, 24 November 2021
Janevic, a Filipino citizen, married Masayoshi Imura, a Japanese national, on April 7, 2006, in Pasay City. They divorced by mutual agreement under Japan’s Civil Code, with the divorce registered by the Mayor of Karuya-shi, Aichi, on May 15, 2009. Later, on December 8, 2016, Janevic sought judicial recognition of the divorce in the Philippines, filing a petition through her brother Ricky in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kidapawan City to change her civil status from “married” to “single.” Ricky presented key documents during the trial, including a Special Power of Attorney, a marriage certificate, Japan’s family register with translations, the divorce notification, a certificate of publication, and relevant provisions of Japan’s Civil Code, all authenticated by the Philippines Consulate and Embassy in Japan.
Issue: Whether the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce should be treated as a petition under Rule 108
No. The import of the recent rulings of the Court is that there is more than one remedy to judicially recognize a foreign divorce decree in the Philippines and availing one remedy does not automatically preclude the institution of another remedy.
An individual seeking the change of his or her civil status must adhere to the requirements governing a petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108. There are underlying objectives and interests that the State seeks to protect in imposing the requirements in Rule 108, including inter alia the requirements on venue (Section 1 of Rule 108) and parties to implead (Section 3 of Rule 108), that the Court cannot simply disregard in favor of expediency.
In Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, the Court categorically acknowledged that a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment in relation to the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is not the same as a petition for cancellation of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules.
Here, it is clear from the prayer that Janevic intended to cancel or correct her civil status entry in the civil registry aside from the judicial recognition of the divorce decree. The cancellation or correction of her civil status cannot be done through a petition for recognition under Article 26 (2) without complying with the requirements of Rule 108.
While the change in Janevic’s civil status is an expected consequence of the judicial recognition of her foreign divorce, it does not automatically follow that the Petition she filed is the petition contemplated under Rule 108. Janevic herself acknowledged in her Petition that “[t]he court does not altogether preclude the filing of the separate proceedings to effect the same.” Since Rule 108 pertains to a special proceeding, its particular provisions on venue and the parties to implead must be observed to vest the Court with jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court cannot take cognizance of Janevic’s prayer for the cancellation or correction of her civil status from “married” to “single” as this may only be pursued and granted in the proper petition filed in compliance with the specific requirements of Rule 108.
You can read the full text of the Supreme Court decision here.
Real LexEcon 