[ G.R. No. 258130. April 17, 2023 ] 940 Phil. 446
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 258130. April 17, 2023 ]
REGIE DAVID TSUTSUMI, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
The Case
This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] seeks to reverse the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 114426:
- Decision[2] dated January 7, 2021, reversing the trial court’s decision which granted the Petition for Recognition of Foreign Divorce; and 2) Resolution[3] dated November 8, 2021, denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Antecedents
On August 17, 1995, after about a year of courtship, petitioner Regie David Tsutsumi[4] and Ayahiro[5] Tsutsumi (Ayahiro), a Filipino and Japanese national, respectively, got married in Tarlac City, Tarlac, Philippines. Their union was blessed with two children.[6] But nearly 21 years after, on April 11, 2016, for reasons they deemed unresolved and irreconcilable, they mutually decided to file a divorce application.[7] On March 7, 2018, they were issued a Divorce Certificate by the Embassy of Japan, duly authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). Accordingly, this Divorce Certificate was recorded in the Civil Registry of the City of Manila, Philippines.[8] Consequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Recognition of Foreign Divorce before the Regional Trial Court, Tarlac City, Tarlac,[9] docketed as Special Proceeding Case No. 5491, and got raffled to Branch 64. During the hearing, the trial court noted that no one came forward to interpose any objection to the petition. The trial court then called for the presentation of petitioner’s evidence. Thus, petitioner, through her Attorney-in-fact Atty. Ronald O. Layawen (Atty. Layawen), offered the following exhibits:[10]
Exhibit “A”– Petition;Exhibit “B”– Order dated July 2, 2018;Exhibit “C”– Compliance;Exhibit “D”– Affidavit of Publication;Exhibit “E”– People’s Journal Tonight dated August 4, 2018;Exhibit “E-1”– Order as published;Exhibit “F”– Acknowledgment;Exhibit “G”– Special Power of Attorney;Exhibit “H”– Certificate of Marriage;Exhibit “I”– Authentication Certificate;Exhibit “J”– Certificate of Acceptance;Exhibit “K”– Certificate of Acceptance in Japanese translation;Exhibit “L”– Authentication Certificate;Exhibit “M”– Divorce Certificate;Exhibit “N”– Certification issued by City Civil Registry Office of Manila;Exhibit “O”– Civil Code of Japan; [and]Exhibit “P”– Civil Code (Part IV and V)[11]
During the trial, Atty. Layawen took the witness stand and identified his Judicial Affidavit as well as its annexes. In his Judicial Affidavit, he stated that: (1) petitioner asked him to represent her because she is presently residing in Japan; (2) petitioner was married to Ayahiro and they were subsequently divorced in Japan; (3) a Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce in English translation and a Divorce Certificate, both duly authenticated by the DFA, were issued; (4) he learned through petitioner that her divorce from Ayahiro in Japan was recognized; (5) petitioner gave him a copy of Japanese Law with English translation; (6) thereafter, petitioner filed the Divorce Certificate with the Civil Registry Office of the City of Manila; and (7) petitioner prayed that judgment be rendered recognizing the foreign divorce she and Ayahiro obtained in Japan.[12]
The Trial Court’s Ruling
By Decision[13] dated June 27, 2019, the trial court granted the petition, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
Recognizing the divorce obtained in Japan between petitioner Regie David Tsutsumi and her Japanese husband, Ayahiro Tsutsumi on August 17, 1995; Declaring that the petitioner Regie David Tsutsumi has the legal capacity to remarry under Philippine law; [and] Ordering the Office of the Civil Registrar General (National Statistics Office), and the Local Civil Registry of Tarlac City to annotate the divorce granted to the parties on April 11, 2016[,] on the Certificate of Marriage of Regie David Tsutsumi and Ayahiro Tsutsumi and to record this judgment of recognition in their Civil Registry of Divorce.
SO ORDERED.[14]
The trial court held that petitioner’s divorce abroad was proven by the authenticated Report of Divorce and the Family Register of the Japanese husband, and the subsequent divorce obtained and authenticated Divorce Certificate issued by the Japanese Embassy in Manila. Being an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country, the same must be proven under Sections 24[15] and 25[16] of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court either by: (1) an official publication; or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy 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 or her office. On this basis, the trial court found that the testimonial and documentary evidence offered by the petitioner are sufficient to give efficacy to the existence of the foreign judgment/divorce obtained in Japan and for petitioner to be declared capacitated to remarry under Philippine law. The Republic of the Philippines filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied under Resolution dated September 2, 2019.[17]
Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the Republic faulted the trial court for finding that the evidence presented by petitioner was sufficient to recognize the alleged divorce in Japan. The Republic argued that petitioner merely presented a photocopy of the Divorce Certificate certified by the Japanese Embassy in Manila and the Civil Registrar of Manila in violation of Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The Divorce Certificate should have been certified by the equivalent local civil registrar in Japan where the parties obtained the said document. More, petitioner was not able to prove the relevant Japanese laws on divorce, nor was she able to properly authenticate any proof thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court. On the other hand, petitioner defended the decision of the trial court and maintained that she was able to comply with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court through her presentation of the Certificate of Acceptance of Notification of Divorce and the Divorce Certificate, both authenticated by the DFA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
By assailed Decision[18] dated January 7, 2021 in CA-G.R. CV No. 114426, the Court of Appeals reversed. First, for Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage to a foreigner, a foreign judgment must be proved as a fact. Here, petitioner obtained a divorce by mutual agreement. She did not present a Japanese court-issued divorce decree of judgment. Second, petitioner’s Divorce Certificate and Certificate of Acceptance of Notice of Divorce were authenticated by the DFA which is not the proper authenticating officer required under Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. It should be the proper diplomatic or consular officer from the Philippine Embassy stationed in Japan where the official record is kept, who should have done so. Third, petitioner tried to circumvent the clear requirement of Rule 132 when she handed the custody of the “original” copy of the Divorce Certificate to the Civil Registrar of Manila who is also not the real custodian, issuer, or executor of the official record. Fourth, petitioner was able to belatedly adduce an original copy of the English translation of Japanese laws with an accompanying Authentication Certificate from the Vice-Consul of the Philippine Embassy stationed in Tokyo, Japan. But these excerpt provisions of the Japanese Civil Code are not fully instructive of, if not irrelevant to, the nature and the legal effects of the divorce by agreement obtained by the parties in Japan. Petitioner must plead and prove the relevant Japanese laws on the kind of divorce being sought to be recognized as a fact in this jurisdiction to pave the way for the application of paragraph 2,[19] Article 26 of the Family Code. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied under the assailed Resolution[20] dated November 8, 2021.
The Present Petition
Petitioner now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and prays that the dispositions of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside.[21] She maintains that she had proven the fact of divorce between her and Ayahiro. The Divorce Certificate and the Certificate of Acceptance[22] were duly presented and formally offered during the trial and their admissibility and relevance weighed without objection from anyone. More, the perceived insufficiency of proof of Japanese law warrants the remand of the case to the trial court to afford the petitioner a chance to adduce additional evidence.[23] Petitioner waxes poetic that she is still bound to a marriage that her foreign spouse is no longer bound to. She is shackled and chained to a barren wasteland with only prolonged misery and demise as an available option. While the family is the basic unit of the nation which should be made inviolable by the principles of the State, in her case, it no longer exists as the foreign spouse has been freed, leaving petitioner in suspended animation – a condition which most consider as worse than death.[24] In its Comment[25] dated August 8, 2022, the Office of the Solicitor General defends the dispositions of the Court of Appeals and ripostes that: (a) petitioner merely presented photocopies of the Divorce Certificate certified by the Japanese Embassy in Manila, authenticated by the DFA and certified as a true copy by the Civil Registrar of Manila; and (2) petitioner’s scheme of registering the Divorce Certificate with the Local Civil Registrar of Manila before it was judicially recognized, is a “mischievous ingenuity” that is not justified and legally improper.
Our Ruling
We reverse. To begin with, we remind lower courts to approach petitions for recognition of foreign divorce under paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code with a view to dispensing substantial justice. Moraña v. Republic[26] is apropos:
Finally, the Court has, time and again, held that the court’s primary duty is to dispense justice; and procedural rules are designed to secure and not to override substantial justice. On several occasions, the Court relaxed procedural rules to advance substantial justice. More so here because what is involved is a matter affecting the lives of petitioner and her children; the case is meritorious; the belated issuance of the Divorce Certificate was not due to petitioner’s fault; and the relaxation of the rules here will not prejudice the State. True, marriage is an inviolable social institution and must be protected by the State. But in cases like these, there is no more “institution” to protect as the supposed institution was already legally broken. Marriage, being a mutual and shared commitment between two parties, cannot possibly be productive of any good to the society where one is considered released from the marital bond while the other remains bound to it.[27] (Italics in the original)
In Republic v. Manalo,[28] the Court explained the realities moving forward and declared that for this kind of petition, the Filipino spouse should not be discriminated against in his or her own country if the ends of justice are to be served:
A prohibitive view of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 would do more harm than good. If We disallow a Filipino citizen who initiated and obtained a foreign divorce from the coverage of Paragraph 2 Article 26 and still require him or her to first avail of the existing “mechanisms” under the Family Code, any subsequent relationship that he or she would enter in the meantime shall be considered as illicit in the eyes of the Philippine law. Worse, any child born out such “extra-marital” affair has to suffer the stigma of being branded as illegitimate. Surely, these are just but a few of the adverse consequences, not only to the parent but also to the child, if We are to hold a restrictive interpretation of the subject provision. The irony is that the principle of inviolability of marriage under Section 2, Article XV of the Constitution is meant to be tilted in favor of marriage and against unions not formalized by marriage, but without denying State protection and assistance to live-in arrangements or to families formed according to indigenous customs. This Court should not turn a blind eye to the realities of the present time. With the advancement of communication and information technology, as well as the improvement of the transportation system that almost instantly connect people from all over the world, mixed marriages have become not too uncommon. Likewise, it is recognized that not all marriages are made in heaven and that imperfect humans more often than not create imperfect unions. Living in a flawed world, the unfortunate reality for some is that the attainment of the individual’s full human potential and self-fulfillment is not found and achieved in the context of a marriage. Thus it is hypocritical to safeguard the quantity of existing marriages and, at the same time, brush aside the truth that some of them are rotten quality. Going back, we hold that marriage, being a mutual and shared commitment between two parties, cannot possibly be productive of any good to the society where one is considered released from the marital bond while the other remains bound to it. In reiterating that the Filipino spouse should not be discriminated against in his or her own country if the ends of justice are to be served…[29]
Verily, in matters pertaining to petitions for recognition of foreign divorce under paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code, courts should endeavor to give all the leeway to the petitioner to prove the matter of divorce, even going to lengths to instruct and use every provision of the rules for the petitioner to obtain a favorable ruling or at least provide a relaxation of rules. Divorce has been sufficiently proved In the proceedings before the trial court, Atty. Layawen identified, presented, and formally offered in evidence the Certificate of Acceptance of Notice of Divorce written in Japanese[30] and its official English Translation,[31] viz.:
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
Notification
Divorce
Date of Notification
April 11, 2016
InformantQualification: Name: Permanent Domicile:Husband Ayahiro Tsutsumi 3-44 Komukainishi Machi, Saiwai Ku, Kawasaki City, Kamagawa Prefecture Ayahiro Tsutsumi Qualification: Name: Nationality:Wife Regie Cabigting David PhilippinesPersons subjected in this case Qualification: Name: Permanent Domicile:Husband
Date of Birth: August 16, 1969
Ayahiro Tsutsumi 3-44 Komukainishi Machi, Saiwai Ku, Kawasaki City, Kamagawa Prefecture [Ayahiro] TsutsumiQualification: Name: Nationality:Wife
Date of Birth: April 2, 1969
Regie Cabigting David PhilippinesGist of Matters of Notification[Name of Child whom Father performs parental authority] Akiko Tsutsumi, Yuki Tsutsumi Hereinafter Blank
This is to certify that the above mentioned notification was accepted on April 11, 2016.
September 22, 2017 [Sealed] Head of Saiwai Ku, Kawasaki City Nobuyuki Ishiwatari
Date of Translation: Feb. 15, 2018 Translator: Kenichi Usuki [Japanese]
305 Cokol Bldg., Patio Madrigal Compound, 2550, Roxas Boulevard Pasay City M.M.[32]
This official English Translation of Certificate of Acceptance of Notice of Divorce written in Japanese was accompanied by a Certificate of Translation by Kenichi Usuki:[33]
Date: Mar[.] 7, 2018
I, the undersigned, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare and certify that I am acquainted with the Japanese and English languages and that the attached document(s) is true and faithful translation of the relevant part of the attached Japanese document(s). Signature: [SGD.] Printed Name: KENICHI USUKI Date of Birth: May 19, 1980 Passport No.: T20770298 Date of Issue: Aug[.] 03, 2011 Place of Issue: MANILA[34]