GERBERT R. CORPUZ, PETITIONER, VS. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, RESPONDENTS.

Corpuz versus Sto. Tomas

The Case

This is the case of Corpuz versus Sto. Tomas. Gerbert Corpuz, a former Filipino who became a Canadian citizen, married Daisylyn Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in the Philippines. A Canadian court later granted him a divorce. He then asked a Philippine trial court to recognize that foreign divorce so that he could remarry here. The trial court refused, holding that only the Filipino spouse may invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. The case matters because the Supreme Court clarifies who may seek judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree, and because it lays down the evidentiary and procedural rules for that recognition, including the proper way to record a foreign decree in the civil registry.

Procedural History

Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce, or in the alternative, for a declaration that his marriage was dissolved, before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 11. Daisylyn was summoned but filed no responsive pleading. She submitted instead a notarized letter and manifestation, offering no opposition and asking to be treated as a party in interest with a similar prayer.

The trial court denied the petition in its decision of October 2008. It ruled that Gerbert was not the proper party, because only the Filipino spouse may avail of the remedy under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. Gerbert moved for reconsideration, and the trial court denied the motion in an order dated February 2009.

Gerbert then elevated the case directly to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Both the Office of the Solicitor General and Daisylyn filed their comments supporting his position. The case thus reached the Supreme Court as a direct appeal by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Gerbert Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization in November 2000. In January 2005, he married Daisylyn Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City. Because of work and other professional commitments, Gerbert left for Canada soon after the wedding.

He returned to the Philippines in April 2005 to surprise his wife, but discovered that she was having an affair with another man. Hurt and disappointed, he went back to Canada and filed a petition for divorce. The Superior Court of Justice in Windsor, Ontario, Canada granted the divorce in December 2005, and the decree took effect a month later, in January 2006.

Two years later, Gerbert wished to marry his new Filipina fiancée in the Philippines. He went to the Pasig City Civil Registry Office and registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and Daisylyn's marriage certificate. An official of the National Statistics Office then informed him that, under Philippine law, the marriage still subsists, and that the foreign decree must first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court. Hence, his petition before the trial court.

Issues

• Whether or not the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to the alien spouse the right to petition a Philippine court for recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
• Whether or not Gerbert, as the alien spouse, has legal interest to petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree.
• Whether or not the registration of the foreign divorce decree in the civil registry, without prior judicial recognition, is valid.

Applicable Provisions

Article 26 of the Family Code provides:

Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

This is the provision whose second paragraph the Court construes, holding that the substantive right it creates belongs to the Filipino spouse alone.

Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows: (a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title of the thing; and (b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title. In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

This is the basis for the Court's holding that the foreign decree clothes Gerbert with a presumptive right and with legal interest to seek its recognition.

Article 407 of the Civil Code provides:

Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register.

This provision, read with the law on the registry of civil status, requires the recording of divorce decrees, but only after judicial recognition.

Article 412 of the Civil Code provides:

No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without judicial order.

This provision explains why the cancellation or correction of a civil registry entry must follow the special proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the alien spouse can claim no right under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. The substantive right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino spouse. The provision was enacted 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. Its legislative intent is to benefit the Filipino spouse by clarifying his or her marital status and capacitating him or her to remarry. No court in this jurisdiction can make a similar declaration for the alien spouse, whose status and legal capacity are governed by his or her national law.

On the second issue, the Court qualified its conclusion. The unavailability of Article 26 to aliens does not strip Gerbert of legal interest. The foreign divorce decree, once its authenticity and conformity with the alien's national law are duly proven, serves as presumptive evidence of a right in his favor under Section 48, Rule 39. Direct involvement in, or being the subject of, the foreign judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the requisite interest to seek its recognition. The Court stressed that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws; the foreign judgment and the alien's national law must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence. Gerbert attached the divorce decree and certificates of authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the Canadian law on divorce. Rather than dismiss the petition, the Court deemed it more appropriate to remand the case to the trial court, given the Article 26 interests involved and Daisylyn's conformity, and to allow other interested parties to oppose the foreign judgment.

On the third issue, the Court held that the registration of the divorce decree by the Pasig City Civil Registry Office was legally improper. The law requires the entry of a divorce decree in the civil registry, but the law and the submission of the decree do not by themselves authorize its registration. The registration, made without the requisite judicial recognition, is patently void and cannot produce any legal effect. The Court also clarified that recognition of the foreign decree does not by itself authorize cancellation of the registry entry, and that a petition for recognition is not the proper proceeding for that purpose. However, the Court added that recognition may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, and that this ruling should not be construed as requiring two separate proceedings.

Doctrine

Only the Filipino spouse may invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code; the alien spouse can claim no right under that provision, because the substantive right to have the marriage considered dissolved is granted for the benefit of the Filipino spouse.

This does not mean the alien spouse has no remedy. The foreign divorce decree, after its authenticity and conformity with the alien's national law are duly proven, is presumptive evidence of a right under Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and clothes the party with legal interest to petition for its recognition in our courts.

Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. They must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, and the recognition may be sought in an action instituted for that purpose or in another action where the foreign decree is invoked as an integral aspect of a claim or defense.

A foreign divorce decree cannot be registered in the civil registry without prior judicial recognition; a registration made without it is void. Recognition may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, which serves as the appropriate adversarial proceeding to test the foreign judgment.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the decision and order of the trial court, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its ruling, with a copy of the decision furnished to the Civil Registrar General, and without costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, but the alien spouse may still seek recognition of the foreign divorce decree as presumptive evidence of a right. Examiners like to use this case on the proper party to a foreign divorce recognition, on the proof required for foreign judgments and foreign law, and on the invalidity of registering a foreign divorce decree without prior judicial recognition.