Republic of the Philippines
Court of Appeals Manila
MARELYN TANEDO MANALO, CA-!R! C" No! #$$$%& Petitioner-Appellant, Members: -versusVELOSO, V.S.E., THE REPUBLIC OF THE Chairperson PHILIPPINES, LANTION, J.A.C., and ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, N.G., N.G., JJ Oppositor-Appellee.
Promulgated: Septe'(er #), *$#+
DECISION LANTION, J.A.C., J J.A.C., J !: This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated 1 !ctober "#1" of
the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan Cit$ ", %irst Judicial Region, &ranch '( (cou (court rt a quo) quo),,( in )P*C )P*C.. PR!C PR!C.. +!. +!. "# "#1" 1"# ### ##, , the the dispositi-e portion of hich reads: / HEREFORE, prem premise isess consi conside dere red d the the Peti Petiti tion on is here hereb$ b$ DENIED for lac0 of merit ! SO ORDERED.' 1
Rollo, pp. 22-24. Petitioner being a resident of Brgy. David, Mangaldan, Pangasinan. 3 Judge Rayond Reynold R. !auigan, presiding. 4 Rollo, p. 2". 2
CA-!R! C" No! #$$$%& De./s/o0
Pae 2 of 9
THE FACTS 1As .ulle2 fro' t3e Re.or2s4
!n 1# Janu Januar ar$ $ "# "#1" 1",, Peti Petiti tion oner er Mare Marel$ l$n n Tane Tanedo do Mana Manalo lo (Petitioner), (Petitioner), a %ilipino citi2en, filed a Petition for the cancellatio cancellation n of her marriage in the ci-il registr$ of )an Juan, Metro Manila b$ -irtue of a 3udgment of di-orce rendered b$ a Japanese court. 4n the Petition, Petitioner alleged being pre-iousl$ married in the Philippines to a certain Minoru 5oshino, a Japanese national, and that she filed a di-orce in Japan hich as granted on 6 December Petitio ion n ere "#11 "# 11.. Atta Attach ched ed to the Petit ere copie copiess of 17 thei theirr Certifiate of 6 !arria"e8 "7 Translated #eision of the Japanese court decreeing the di-orce89 (7 A$t%entiation& b$ the Philippine Consulate eneral for Japan of the Notifiation of #i'ore . After finding the Petition and its attachments to be sufficient in form and substance, the court a ($o set the case for initial hearing on " April "#1". )ubse;uentl$, the Petition and Notie of Initial )earin" * ere published once a ee0 for three <(7 consecuti-e ee0s in a nespaper of general circulation. 1# !n "' %ebruar$ "#1", the !ffice of the )olicitor eneral (OSG) ente entere red d its its appea ppearran ancce for for th thee Republ public ic of th thee Phi Philipp lippin ines es,, authori2ing the Assistant Cit$ Prosecutor to appear on its behalf.11 Thro Throug ugh h a !otion+!anifestation filed b$ the !), Petitioner amende amended d the caption caption of her Petition from Petition for Canellation of Entr of !arria"e in t%e Ci'il /e"istr to Petition Petition for t%e /eo"nition /eo"nition and Enfore0ent of 1orei"n J$d"0ent and for t%e Canellation of Entr of !arria"e in t%e Ci'il /e"istr.2
#
$%roug% %er fat%er - &s'ar $. (arag, Re'ords, p. 3. Re'ords, p. 4*. + Re'ords, pp. #-#1. " Re'ords, p. #2. * Re'ords, p. 2#. 1 agayan tar (e/spaper issues fro epteber *-1#, 1)-22 and 23-2*, 2120 Re'ords pp. 21-2*. 11 Re'ords p. )". 12 Re'ords, pp. )*-+3. 13 Re'ords, pp. "1-"3. )
CA-!R! C" No! #$$$%& De./s/o0
Pae 3 of 9
Trial ensued thereafter. Petitioner testified in support of her petition and offered the folloing documentar$ e-idence, 'i3: 17 !rder of the court court a ;uo ;uo dated dated " Jan Januar uar$ $ "#1", "#1", fin findin ding g the Petition an and d its its atta attach chme ment ntss to be suff suffic icie ient nt in form form an and d in substance8 "7 Affida-it of Publication8 (7 4ssue of the +orthern Journal Journal dated "= %ebruar$ to March "#1"8 "#1" 8 '7 Certif Certifica icate te of Marria Marriage ge betee beteen n Petiti Petitione onerr and the Japane Japanese se national8 7 Decision of the Japanese Court alloing the di-orce8 67 Authentication>Certificate issued b$ the Philippine Consulate eneral in !sa0a, Japan of the +otification of Di-orce8 97 Acce Accept ptan ance ce of Cert Certif ific icat atee of Di-o Di-orc rcee b$ Peti Petiti tion oner er an and d the the Japanese national. ???
The !) in return did not present an$ contro-erting e-idence to rebut Petitioner@s e-idence. ( $o rendered !n 1 !cto !ctobe berr "# "#1" 1",, th thee cour courtt a ($ rendered the assailed assailed #eision den$ing the Petition. The cour courtt a ($o refused to recogni2e the di-orce obtained b$ Petitioner and her husband, considering that it as Petitioner ho filed the di-orce case against the Japanese nati na tion onal al.. The The cour courtt a ($o ratiocinat ratiocinated ed that the the 0ind 0ind of di-o di-orc rcee recogni2ed here in the Philippines are those -alidl$ obtained b$ the alien spouse abroad, not b$ the %ilipino spouse, pursuant to Article "61' of the %amil$ Code .
Peti Petiti tion oner er filed filed a !otion for /eonsideration4 of the assail assailed ed #eision of the court a ($o, but the same as denied on 1( December "#1". ence, this Appeal.
14
rt. 2). ll arriages solenied solenied outside t%e P%ilippines, in a''ordan'e /it% t%e la/s in for'e in t%e 'ountry /%ere t%ey /ere solenied, and valid t%ere as su'%, s%all also be valid in t%is 'ountry, e'ept t%ose pro%ibited under rti'les 3#15, 45, #5 and )5, 3), 3+ and 3".
6%ere a arriage bet/een a 7ilipino 'itien and a foreigner is validly 'elebrated 'elebrated and a divor'e is t%ereafter validly obtained abroad by by t%e alien spouse 'apa'itating %i or %er to rearry, rearry, t%e 7ilipino spouse s%all li8e/ise li8e/ise %ave 'apa'ity to rearry under P%ilippine la/. 1# Re'ords, pp. 1+1-1+#.
CA-!R! C" No! #$$$%& De./s/o0
Pae 4 of 9
ASSINMENT OF ERROR 4
T* C!BRT A B! C!MM4TT*D A+ *RR!R 4+ %ACT A+D A+D 4+ AE E*+ *+ 4T PR!+ PR!+!B !B+C +C* *D TA TAT T* T* D4F!RC* D4F!RC* !&TA4+ !&TA4+*D *D &5 P*T4T4 P*T4T4!+* !+*RA RAPP* PP*A A+T +T 4+ JAPA+ CA++!T &* R*C!+4G*D R*C!+4G*D 4+ T* P44PP4+*).16
THIS COURT5S RULIN ( $o in Peti Petiti tion oner er im impu pute tess erro errorr on th thee part part of th thee cour courtt a ($ den$ing her Petition and in not appl$ing in her fa-or Article "6 of the %ami %amil$ l$ Co Code de.. )he )he argu argues es that that the the di-or di-orce ce she she an and d her her Japa Japane nese se husb husban and d obta obtain ined ed in Japa Japan n shou should ld be reco recogn gni2 i2ed ed here here in th thee Philippines as it is un3ust to consider her as still married to the said Japanese ho is no longer married to her and is alread$ capacitated to remarr$ another.
The Appeal has a merit. The resolution of the issue re;uires a re-ie of the legislati-e histor$ and intent behind the second paragraph of Article "6 of the %amil$ Code. The The %ami %amil$ l$ Co Code de reco recogn gni2 i2es es on onl$ l$ t to o t$pe t$pess of defe defect ctii-ee marriages H -oid 19 and -oidable1= marriages. 4n both cases, the basis for the 3udicial declaration of absolute nullit$ or annulment of the marriage e?ists before or at the time of the marriage. Di-orce, on the other hand, contemplates the dissolution of the laful union for cause arising after the marriage. 1I !ur famil$ las do not recogni2e absolute di-orce beteen %ilipino citi2ens. "# Recogni2ing the realit$ that di-orce is a possibilit$ in marriages beteen a %ilipino and an alien, President Cora2on C. A;uino, in the 1)
Rollo, p. 13. $%e void arriages are t%ose enuerated under rti'les 3#, 3), 3+, 3", 4, 41, 44, and #3 in relation to rti'le #2 of t%e 7aily ode. 1" $%e voidable arriages are t%ose enuerated under rti'le 4# of t%e 7aily ode. 1* 9ar'ia v. Re'io, 9.R. (o. 13"322, &'tober 2, 21. 2 ee . $olentino, oentaries and Jurispruden'e on t%e ivil ode of t%e P%ilippines, :olue &ne, /it% t%e 7aily ode of t%e P%ilippines 24 ed.5, p. 2)2. 1+
CA-!R! C" No! #$$$%& De./s/o0
Pae 5 of 9
e?ercise of her legislati-e poers under the %reedom Constitution, "1 enacted enacted *?ecuti-e *?ecuti-e !rder +o. ""9 (O !!"), !!"), amending Article "6 of the %amil$ Code to its present ording, as follos: Art. "6. All marriages solemni2ed outside the Philippines, in accordance ith the las in force in the countr$ here the$ ere solemni2ed, and -alid there as such, shall also be -alid in this countr$, e?cept those prohibited under Articles (<17, <'7, <7 and <67, (6, (9 and (=. 3ere a 'arr/ae (et6ee0 a F/l/p/0o ./t/7e0 a02 a fore/0er /s 8al/2l9 .ele(rate2 a02 a 2/8or.e /s t3ereafter 8al/2l9 o(ta/0e2 a(roa2 (9 t3e al/e0 spouse .apa./tat/0 3/' or 3er to re'ar re'arr9, r9, t3e F/l/p F/l/p/0 /0o o spou spouse se s3all s3all l/:e6 l/:e6/s /se e 3a8e 3a8e .apa./ .apa./t9 t9 to re'arr9 u02er P3/l/pp/0e la6! <*mphasis supplied7
a8o/2 2 t3e t3e Arti Articl clee "6 of th thee %ami %amil$ l$ Code ode a ass am amen ende ded d to a8o/ a(sur2 s/tuat/o0 63ere t3e F/l/p/0o spouse re'a/0s 'arr/e2 to t3e al/e0 spouse 63o, after o(ta/0/0 a 2/8or.e, /s 0o lo0er 'arr/e2 to t3e F/l/p/0o spouse! "" The legislati-e intent is for the benefit of the %ilipino spouse, b$ clarif$ing his or her marital status, settling the doubts created b$ the di-orce decree.
4n this case, case, Petitioner Petitioner filed a di-orce di-orce case in Japan against her Japanese husband. Conse;uentl$, a di-orce decree as obtained b$ them th em ma ma0i 0ing ng th thee said said Japa Japane nese se na nati tion onal al no long longer er ma marr rrie ied d to Petitioner, capacitating the said Japanese to remarr$. The court a ($o, hoe-er, did not recogni2e their di-orce, considering that it as Petitioner ho filed the di-orce case against the Japanese national. Ee disagree. The pro-ision of Article "6 of the %amil$ Code can be traced from the )upreme Court@s ruling in Van #orn '. /o0illo, Jr., 2 here the marriage therein beteen the foreign spouse and his %ilipino spouse as subse;uentl$ dissol-ed t3rou3 a 2/8or.e f/le2 a(roa2 (9 t3e F/l/p/0o spouse! The )upreme Court ruled that a foreign di-orce can se-ere the marital bond beteen the %ilipino and alien spouse, ratiocinating: 21
Pro'laation (o. (o. 3, issued on Mar' % 2#, 1**). Republi' v. &rbe'ido ;;;, 9.R. (o. 1#43", &'tober #, 2#. 23 9.R. (o. !-)"4+, &'tober &'tober ", 1*"#, 13* R 13*, as 'ited in t%e 'ase of an !uis vs. an !uis, 9.R. 9.R. (o. 133+43. 7ebruary ), 2+. 22
CA-!R! C" No! #$$$%& De./s/o0
Pae 6 of 9
To maintain . . . that, under our las, the %ilipino spouse has to be considered still married to the alien spouse and still sub3ect to a ife@s obligations . . . cannot be 3ust. The %ilipino spouse should not be obliged to li-e together ith, obser-e respect and fidelit$, and render support to the alien spouse. The alien spouse should not continue to be an heir of the %ilipino spouse ith possible righ rights ts to con3 con3ug ugal al prop proper ert$ t$.. )he )he shou should ld no nott be disc discri rimi mina nate ted d "' against in her on countr$ if the ends of 3ustice are to be ser-ed.
As in Van #orn, s$pra, the fact that it as Petitioner herein ho filed the di-orce case against her Japanese husband is of no moment. Article "6 of the %amil$ Code states that a di-orce -alidl$ obtained b$ the alien spouse abroad, capacitating him to remarr$ shall li0eise capacitate the %ilipino spouse to remarr$ under the Philippine la. !# ere, from the di-orce case filed b$ Petitioner, a di-orce decree as -ali -alidl dl$ $ obta obtain ined ed b$ the the Japa Japane nese se na nati tion onal al,, capa capaci cita tati ting ng him him to rema remarr rr$. $. Co Cons nsid ider erin ing g that that the the said said Japa Japane nese se is alre alread ad$ $ free free to remarr$, Petitioner must li0eise be alloed to remarr$ under the Philippine la. 4n Na'arro 's Er0ita,"6 the )upreme Court stated: Ee test a la b$ its results8 and li0eise, e ma$ add, b$ its purposes. 4t is a cardinal rule that, in see0ing the meaning of the la, the first concern of the 3udge should be to disco-er in its pro-isions the intent of the lama0er. Bn;uestionabl$, the la should ne-er be interpreted in such a a$ as to cause in3ustice as this is ne-er ithin the legislati-e intent. An indispensable part of that that inte intent nt,, in fact fact,, for for e pres presum umee the the good good mo moti ti-e -ess of the the legislature, is to render 3ustice. Thus, e interpret and appl$ the la not independentl$ of but in consonance ith 3ustice. a and 3ustice are inseparable, and e must 0eep them so. To be sure, there are some las that, hile generall$ -alid, ma$ seem arbitrar$ hen applied in a particular case because of its peculiar circumstances. 4n such a situation, e are not bound, bound, because onl$ of our nature and function functions, s, to appl$ appl$ them 3ust the same, in sla-ish obedience to their language. language. Ehat e do instead is find a balance beteen the ord and the ill, that 3ustice ma$ be done e-en e-en as the la is obe$ed. obe$ed.
24
upra. rti'le 2) of t%e 7aily ode. 2) 9.R. (o. 1"#, pril 12, 211. 2#
CA-!R! C" No! #$$$%& De./s/o0
Pae 7 of 9
Conform Confo rmabl abl$ $ i ith th Na'arro 's. Er0ita , s$pra, and considering the legislati-e legislati-e intent behind Article "6 of the %amil$ %amil$ Code, it ould be the height of in3ustice to consider Petitioner as still married to the Japanese national, ho is no longer married to Petitioner. A %ilipino spouse should not be discriminated against in his>her on countr$ if the ends of 3ustice are to be ser-ed. "9 To still e?pect Petitioner to contin continue ue render rendering ing suppo support rt and obserobser-ee fideli fidelit$ t$ to the Japane Japanese se national ho is alread$ free to remarr$ is a clear discrimination agai agains nstt Peti Petiti tion oner er.. Thus Thus,, in the the inte intere rest st of 3ust 3ustic ice, e, Peti Petiti tion oner er@s @s marriage to the Japanese national must li0eise be considered as dissol-ed. %or Philippine courts to recogni2e a foreign 3udgment relating to the status of a marriage here one of the parties is a citi2en of a fore foreig ign n coun countr tr$, $, the the peti petiti tion oner er on$% on$% nee& nee&ss to prov provee sai& sai& 'ore 'orei in n u&*ent as a 'act under under the Rules of Court. To be more specific, a cop$ of the foreign 3udgment, such as the di-orce decree, ma$ be admitted in e-idence and pro-en as a fact under Rule 1(", )ections "' and ","= in relation to Rule (I, )ection '=
an !uis vs. an !uis, 9.R. (o. (o. 133+43, 7ebruary ), 2+. Rule 132, e'. 24. Proof of offi'ial re'ord. < $%e re'ord of publi' do'uents referred to in paragrap% a5 of e'tion 1*, /%en adissible for any purpose, ay be eviden'ed by an offi'ial publi'ation t%ereof or by a 'opy attested by t%e offi'er %aving t%e legal 'ustody of t%e re'ord, or by %is deputy, and a''opanied, a''opanied, if t%e re'ord is not 8ept in t%e P%ilippines, P%ilippines, /it% a 'ertifi'ate t%at su'% offi'er %as t%e 'ustody. 'ustody. ;f t%e offi'e in /%i'% t%e re'ord is 8ept is in a foreign 'ountry, 'ountry, t%e 'ertifi'ate ay be ade by a se'retary of t%e ebassy or legation, 'onsul general, 'onsul, vi'e 'onsul, or 'onsular agent or by any offi'er in t%e foreign servi'e of t%e P%ilippines stationed in t%e foreign 'ountry in /%i'% t%e re'ord is 8ept, and aut%enti'ated by t%e seal of %is offi'e. 2"
e'. 2#. 6%at attestation of 'opy ust state. state. < 6%enever 6%enever a 'opy 'opy of a do'uent do'uent or re'ord re'ord is attested for t%e purpose of eviden'e, t%e attestation ust state, in substan'e, t%at t%e 'opy is a 'orre't 'opy of t%e original, or a spe'ifi' part t%ereof, as t%e 'ase ay be. $%e attestation ust be under t%e offi'ial seal of t%e attesting offi'er, offi'er, if t%ere be any, any, or if %e be t%e 'ler8 of a 'ourt %aving a seal, under t%e seal of su' % 'ourt. 2* Rule 3*, e'. 4". =ffe't of foreign >udgents or final orders. orders. < $%e effe't of a >udgent or final order of a tribunal of a foreign 'ountry, 'ountry, %aving >urisdi'tion to render t%e >udgent or final order, order, is as follo/s? a5 ;n 'ase of a >udgent or final order upon a spe'ifi' t%ing, t%e >udgent or final order is 'on'lusive upon t%e title of t%e t%ing0 and b5 ;n 'ase of a >udgent or final order against a person, t%e >udgent or final order is presuptive eviden'e of a rig%t as bet/een t%e parties and t%eir su''essors in interest by a subse@uent title. ;n eit%er 'ase, t%e >udgent or final order ay be repelled by eviden'e of a /ant of >urisdi'tion, /ant of noti'e to t%e party, 'ollusion, fraud, or 'lear ista8e of la/ or fa't. 3 7u>i8i vs. Marinay, 9.R. (o. 1*)4*, June 2), 213.
CA-!R! C" No! #$$$%& De./s/o0
Pae 8 of 9
A$t%entiation+Certifiate issued b$ the Philippine Consulate eneral in !sa0a, Japan of the #eree of #i'ore5 and (7 Aeptane of Certifiate of #i'ore b$ Petitioner and the Japanese national. Bnder Rule 1(", )ections "' and ", in relation to Rule (I, )ection '=
The recognition of a foreign 3udgment ser-es as the basis for the corr correc ecti tion on or canc cancel ella lati tion on of entr entr$ $ in the the ci-i ci-ill regi regist str$ r$.. The The said said recognition is a subse;uent e-ent that establishes a ne status, right and fact that needs to be reflected in the ci-il registr$. !therise, ther th eree ill ill be an inco incons nsis iste tenc nc$ $ bet betee een n th thee reco recogn gnit itio ion n of th thee effecti-it$ of the foreign 3udgment and the public records in the Philippines.(1 Conse;uentl$, Ee order that a cop$ of this 3udgment be ser-ed on the Ci-il Registrar of )an Juan, Metro Manila for the cancellation of Petitioner@s entr$ of marriage in the Ci-il Registr$. (" HEREFORE, the instant appeal is RANTED! The #eision dated 1 !ctober "#1" of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan Cit$, %irst Judicial Region, &ranch '(, in )P*C. PR!C. +!. "#1"### is RE"ERSED and SET ASIDE!
et a cop$ of this #eision be ser-ed on the ocal Ci-il Registrar of )an Juan Metro Manila. SO ORDERED!
31 32
7u>i8i vs. Marinay, 9.R. (o. 1*)4*, June 2), 213. ee e'tion +, Rule 1" of t%e Rules of ourt.
CA-!R! C" No! #$$$%& De./s/o0
Pae 9 of 9
E CONCUR=
"ICENTE S!E! "ELOSO Asso./ate
NINA ! ANTONIO-"ALEN>UELA Asso./ate
CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article F444, )ection 1( of the Constitution, it is hereb$ hereb$ certif certified ied that that the conclu conclusio sions ns in the abo-e abo-e decisi decision on ere ere reached in consultation before the case as assigned to the riter of the opinion of the court.
"ICENTE S!E! "ELOSO Associate Justice Chairperson, Tenth Di-ision
