RHODORA ILUMIN RACHO, A.K.A. “RHODORA RACHO TANAKA,” PETITIONER, VS. SEIICHI TANAKA, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL O…

Racho versus Tanaka

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Rhodora Ilumin Racho against her Japanese husband Seiichi Tanaka, the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, and the Administrator and Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Office. Racho asks our courts to judicially recognize the divorce she and her husband obtained in Japan and to declare her capacitated to remarry under Philippine law. The case matters because it settles two things a reviewee must hold firmly: first, how a foreign divorce and the foreign spouse's national law must be pleaded and proved before our trial courts; and second, that the Filipino spouse need not be the one who initiated the foreign divorce in order to acquire the capacity to remarry under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.

Procedural History

Racho filed a Petition for Judicial Determination and Declaration of Capacity to Marry before Branch 254 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City. The trial court dismissed the petition on June 2, 2011. It found that while Racho had proved the national law of her Japanese husband, the Divorce Certificate she presented was not competent evidence because it was not the divorce decree itself. Racho moved for reconsideration, arguing that under Japanese law a divorce by agreement becomes effective upon notification. The trial court denied the motion in an Order dated October 3, 2011, finding that she failed to present the notification of divorce and its acceptance.

Racho then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court on December 19, 2011. In a Resolution dated January 18, 2012, the Court deferred action on the petition pending her submission of a duly authenticated acceptance certificate of the notification of divorce. Racho complied on March 16, 2012, attaching a duly authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce that she obtained in Japan. The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment, and Racho filed her Reply. The Court then resolved the case on its merits.

Facts

Racho and Tanaka were married on April 20, 2001 in Las Piñas City, Metro Manila. They lived together for nine years in Saitama Prefecture, Japan, and had no children. On December 16, 2009, Tanaka filed for divorce and the divorce was granted. Racho secured a Divorce Certificate issued by Consul Kenichiro Takayama of the Japanese Consulate in the Philippines, and had it authenticated by an authentication officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Racho tried to have the Divorce Certificate registered with the Civil Registry of Manila, but the City Registrar refused because there was no court order recognizing it. When she went to the Department of Foreign Affairs to renew her passport, she was told she needed the proper court order. The National Statistics Office likewise informed her that her divorce could only be annotated in the Certificate of Marriage if there was a court order capacitating her to remarry. On the advice of her lawyer, she went to the Japanese Embassy and secured an English version of the Civil Code of Japan.

On May 19, 2010, Racho filed her Petition for Judicial Determination and Declaration of Capacity to Marry with the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the case reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in dismissing the Petition for Declaration of Capacity to Marry for insufficiency of evidence.
• Whether or not the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is sufficient to prove that a divorce between Racho and Tanaka was validly obtained by Tanaka according to his national law.
• Whether or not a divorce by agreement, initiated by the foreign spouse, falls within the contemplation of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.

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 have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

This is the provision that grants the Filipino spouse the substantive right to have the marriage dissolved and the capacity to remarry once a foreign divorce is validly obtained.

Article 728 of the Civil Code of Japan provides:

Article 728. 1. The matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce.

This is the national law of the foreign spouse, which the trial court duly admitted and which establishes that divorce terminates the marriage.

Section 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 24. Proof of official record. The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.

This governs the admissibility of the foreign official record that proves the fact of divorce.

Section 14 of Article II of the Constitution provides:

Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

This is the constitutional anchor for the Court's refusal to read Article 26 in a way that disadvantages the Filipina spouse.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court would not have erred in dismissing the petition on the evidence then before it. Mere presentation of a divorce decree before a trial court is insufficient. Courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and foreign judgments, so the divorce decree and the national law of the foreign spouse must be pleaded and proved like any other fact. The Divorce Certificate only certified that the divorce decree exists; it was not the divorce decree itself.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce, submitted on appeal, was admissible. It was accompanied by an Authentication issued by Consul Bryan Dexter B. Lao of the Embassy of the Philippines in Tokyo, Japan, certifying that the Japanese official was authorized to sign the document and that his signature was genuine. Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the Certificate of Acceptance is admissible as evidence of the fact of divorce. Since Japanese law makes a divorce by agreement effective by notification, the divorce was validly obtained according to Tanaka's national law.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the Solicitor General's narrow reading of Article 26. It held that it is irrelevant whether it is the foreign spouse who procures the divorce abroad. Once a divorce decree is issued, the divorce becomes validly obtained and capacitates the foreign spouse to marry, and the same status should be given to the Filipino spouse. The Court relied on its earlier holding in Republic versus Manalo:

Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of a divorce validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted.

Doctrine

First, judicial recognition of a foreign divorce requires that the national law of the foreign spouse and the divorce decree be pleaded and proved as a fact before the Regional Trial Court. Courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and foreign judgments.

Second, a foreign official record is admissible under Section 24 of Rule 132 when attested by the officer having custody and accompanied by a certificate of a Philippine consular officer, authenticated by the seal of his office.

Third, under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, it is irrelevant whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce. The provision only requires that a divorce be validly obtained abroad, and the Filipino spouse then acquires the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition, recognized the foreign divorce, and declared Racho capacitated to remarry under Philippine law.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a foreign divorce and the foreign spouse's national law must be pleaded and proved as facts, and once validly obtained, the Filipino spouse acquires the capacity to remarry regardless of who initiated the divorce. Examiners use this case on the proof of foreign judgments and on the scope of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.