Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas Case Digest G.R. No. 186571 ; August 11, 2010

Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas Case Digest 

G.R. No. 186571 ; August 11, 2010

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Jurisdictional and procedural requirements before a judgment, authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be annotated in the civil registry (Rule 108 of the Rules of Court)

- Verified petition must be filed with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located;

- Civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest must be made parties to the proceedings

- Time and place for hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Conflict of Laws

a) Rule on recognition of a foreign divorce judgment

- Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws

b) How foreign divorce judgment is recognized in the Philippines

- Foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. (Republic v. Orbecido III, supra note 10 at 123 and Garcia v. Recio, supra note 17 at 448; see also Bayot v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155635, November 7, 2008, 570 SCRA 472.)

            - Foreign judgment must be ALLEGED and PROVED

c) How to ALLEGE and PROVE foreign judgment (Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court)

Proof either by:

(1) official publications OR

(2) copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents.

If the copies of official records are not kept in the Philippines, these must be:

(a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept AND

(b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

d) Registration of the foreign divorce decree should be done with judicial recognition of the foreign judgment

Article 407 of the Civil Code requires the entry in the civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal consequences touching upon a person’s legal capacity and status. But while the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry, the law and the submission of the decree by themselves do not ipso facto authorize the decree’s registration. The law should be read in relation with the requirement of a judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be given res judicata effect.

Persons and Family Relations

a) Second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code cam only be claimed by a Filipino citizen

The alien spouse can claim no right under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino spouse

b) Two types of defective marriages recognized under the Family Code

- void marriages

- voidable marriages

c) Void and voidable marriages vs. Divorce

Void and voidable marriages - Dissolution of the lawful union is based on a cause existing before or at the time of the marriage

Divorce- Dissolution of the lawful union is based on a cause arising after the marriage

d) Philippines does not recognize absolute divorce; exception

GR: Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that the policy against absolute divorces cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated in a foreign country.

Exception: Second paragraph in Article 26 of the Family Code recognizes the dissolution of the marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse.

e) Effect of 2nd par. of Article 26 of the Family Code

- Recognition of the foreign divorce decree

- Declare that the Filipino spouse is capacitated to contract another marriage if the court finds that the foreign divorce decree capacitated the alien spouse to remarry.

f) Intent for enactment of 2nd par. of Article 26 of the Family Code

"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."

FACTS: Petitioner Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization. He married a Filipina. He later filed a petition for divorce for his first wife since he discovered that she was having an affair. This was granted. Two years after the divorce, Gerbert found another Filipina to love. He desired to marry her. So he registered the Canadian divorce decree in the Civil Registry Office. But he was informed that despite the registration of the divorce decree the marriage between him and his first wife still subsists under Philippine law and for the divorce decree to be enforceable, it must first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court.

Petitioner then filed for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of marriage as dissolved with the RTC. The RTC denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner lacked locus standi. Thus, petitioner directly appeals to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE/S:

1) WON the 2nd paragraph of Art 26 of the FC extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree.

2) WON Civil Registry Office acted out of line in registering the foreign decree of divorce.

HELD:

1) NO. Only a Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy under the 2nd paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code because the substantive right it establishes is in favour of the Filipino spouse.  Hence, only the Filipino spouse can invoke the 2nd paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code.

However, the unavailability of the 2nd 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 alien’s national law.

2) YES. Article 407 of the Civil Code requires the entry in the civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal consequences touching upon a person’s legal capacity and status. But while the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry, the law and the submission of the decree by themselves do not ipso facto authorize the decree’s registration. The law should be read in relation with the requirement of a judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be given res judicata effect.

In the context of the present case, no judicial order as yet exists recognizing the foreign divorce decree. Hence, the Civil Registry acted out of line when it registered the foreign decree of divorce on the petitioner and respondent’s marriage certificate without judicial order recognizing the said decree.  The registration of the foreign divorce decree without the requisite judicial recognition is patently void and cannot produce any legal effect.