Foreign divorce decree; proofs of; recognition in Philippines

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. MARELYN TANEDO MANALO, Respondent, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018.



“x x x.


Jurisprudence has set guidelines before the Philippine courts recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of foreign country. Presentation solely of the divorce decree will not suffice.89 The fact of divorce must still first be proven.90 Before a a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.91


x x x Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be presented and admitted in evidence. A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. The decree purports to be written act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of foreign country.


Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (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 office.92


In granting Manalo's petition, the CA noted:


In this case, Petitioner was able to submit before the court a quo the 1) Decision of the Japanese Court allowing the divorce; 2) the Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippines Consulate General in Osaka, Japan of the Decree of Divorce; and 3) Acceptance of Certificate of Divorce by the Petitioner and the Japanese national. Under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48 (b) of the Rules of Court, these documents sufficiently prove the subject Divorce Decree as a fact. Thus, We are constrained to recognize the Japanese Court's judgment decreeing the divorce.93


If the opposing party fails to properly object, as in this case, the divorce decree is rendered admissible as a written act of the foreign court.94 As it appears, the existence of the divorce decree was not denied by the OSG; neither was the jurisdiction of the divorce court impeached nor the validity of its proceedings challenged on the ground of collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of fact or law, albeit an opportunity to do so.95


Nonetheless, the Japanese law on divorce must still be proved.


x x x The burden of proof lies with the "party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of proving the material defendants have the burden of proving the material allegations in their answer when they introduce new matters. x x x


It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts, they must alleged and proved. x x x The power of judicial notice must be exercise d with caution, and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be resolved in the negative.96


Since the divorce was raised by Manalo, the burden of proving the pertinent Japanese law validating it, as well as her former husband's capacity to remarry, fall squarely upon her. Japanese laws on persons and family relations are not among those matters that Filipino judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function.


X x x.”