Corupuz vs. Sto. Thomas

8/9/2019 Corupuz vs. Sto. Thomas

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/corupuz-vs-sto-thomas 1/9

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 186571 August 11, 2010

GERBERT R. CORPUZ, Petitioner,vs.DAIS !N TIRO! STO. TOMAS "#$ T%& SO!ICITOR GENERA!, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

BRION, J.:

"efore the !ourt is a direct appeal fro# the decision $ of the Re%ional Trial !ourt &RT!'of (aoa% !it), "ranch $$, elevated via a petition for revie* on certiorari + under Rule -of the Rules of !ourt &present petition'.

Petitioner erbert R. !orpu/ *as a for#er 0ilipino citi/en *ho ac1uired !anadianciti/enship throu%h naturali/ation on Nove#ber +2, +333. 4 On 5anuar) $6, +33-,erbert #arried respondent Dais)l)n T. Sto. To#as, a 0ilipina, in Pasi% !it). Due to*or7 and other professional co##it#ents, erbert left for !anada soon after the*eddin%. He returned to the Philippines so#eti#e in 8pril +33- to surprise Dais)l)n, but*as shoc7ed to discover that his *ife *as havin% an affair *ith another #an. Hurt and

disappointed, erbert returned to !anada and filed a petition for divorce. The Superior!ourt of 5ustice, 9indsor, Ontario, !anada %ranted erbert:s petition for divorce onDece#ber 6, +33-. The divorce decree too7 effect a #onth later, on 5anuar) 6, +33;. -

T*o )ears after the divorce, erbert has #oved on and has found another 0ilipina tolove. Desirous of #arr)in% his ne* 0ilipina fianc<e in the Philippines, erbert *ent tothe Pasi% !it) !ivil Re%istr) Office and re%istered the !anadian divorce decree on hisand Dais)l)n:s #arria%e certificate. Despite the re%istration of the divorce decree, anofficial of the National Statistics Office &NSO' infor#ed erbert that the #arria%ebet*een hi# and Dais)l)n still subsists under Philippine la*= to be enforceable, theforei%n divorce decree #ust first be >udiciall) reco%ni/ed b) a co#petent Philippine

court, pursuant to NSO !ircular No. , series of $26+.;

8ccordin%l), erbert filed a petition for >udicial reco%nition of forei%n divorce and?ordeclaration of #arria%e as dissolved & petition ' *ith the RT!. 8lthou%h su##oned,Dais)l)n did not file an) responsive pleadin% but sub#itted instead a notari/edletter?#anifestation to the trial court. She offered no opposition to erbert:s petition and,in fact, alle%ed her desire to file a si#ilar case herself but *as prevented b) financial

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_186571_2010.html#fnt1














and personal circu#stances. She, thus, re1uested that she be considered as a part)@in@interest *ith a si#ilar pra)er to erbert:s.

In its October 43, +336 decision, A the RT! denied erbert:s petition. The RT!concluded that erbert *as not the proper part) to institute the action for >udicial

reco%nition of the forei%n divorce decree as he is a naturali/ed !anadian citi/en. It ruledthat onl) the 0ilipino spouse can avail of the re#ed), under the second para%raph of 8rticle +; of the 0a#il) !ode, 6 in order for hi# or her to be able to re#arr) underPhilippine la*. 2 8rticle +; of the 0a#il) !ode readsB

8rt. +;. 8ll #arria%es sole#ni/ed outside the Philippines, in accordance *ith the la*s inforce in the countr) *here the) *ere sole#ni/ed, and valid there as such, shall also bevalid in this countr), eCcept those prohibited under 8rticles 4-&$', & ', &-' and &;', 4;, 4Aand 46.

9here a #arria%e bet*een a 0ilipino citi/en and a forei%ner is validl) celebrated and a

divorce is thereafter validl) obtained abroad b) the alien spouse capacitatin% hi# or herto re#arr), the 0ilipino spouse shall li7e*ise have capacit) to re#arr) under Philippinela*.

This conclusion, the RT! stated, is consistent *ith the le%islative intent behind theenact#ent of the second para%raph of 8rticle +; of the 0a#il) !ode, as deter#ined b)the !ourt in Republic v. Orbecido III= $3 the provision *as enacted to avoid the absurdsituation *here the 0ilipino spouse re#ains #arried to the alien spouse *ho, afterobtainin% a divorce, is no lon%er #arried to the 0ilipino spouse. $$

TH P TITION

0ro# the RT!:s rulin%, $+ erbert filed the present petition. $4

erbert asserts that his petition before the RT! is essentiall) for declarator) relief,si#ilar to that filed in Orbecido= he, thus, si#ilarl) as7s for a deter#ination of his ri%htsunder the second para%raph of 8rticle +; of the 0a#il) !ode. Ta7in% into account therationale behind the second para%raph of 8rticle +; of the 0a#il) !ode, he contendsthat the provision applies as *ell to the benefit of the alien spouse. He clai#s that theRT! rulin% undul) stretched the doctrine in Orbecido b) li#itin% the standin% to file thepetition onl) to the 0ilipino spouse E an interpretation he clai#s to be contrar) to theessence of the second para%raph of 8rticle +; of the 0a#il) !ode. He considers hi#self

as a proper part), vested *ith sufficient le%al interest, to institute the case, as there is apossibilit) that he #i%ht be prosecuted for bi%a#) if he #arries his 0ilipina fianc<e in thePhilippines since t*o #arria%e certificates, involvin% hi#, *ould be on file *ith the !ivilRe%istr) Office. The Office of the Solicitor eneral and Dais)l)n, in their respective!o##ents, $ both support erbert:s position.



















one of her heirs *ith possible ri%hts to con>u%al propert). She should not bediscri#inated a%ainst in her o*n countr) if the ends of >ustice are to be served. ++

8s the RT! correctl) stated, the provision *as included in the la* to avoid the absurdsituation *here the 0ilipino spouse re#ains #arried to the alien spouse *ho, after

obtainin% a divorce, is no lon%er #arried to the 0ilipino spouse.+4

The le%islative intentis for the benefit of the 0ilipino spouse, b) clarif)in% his or her #arital status, settlin% thedoubts created b) the divorce decree. ssentiall), the second para%raph of 8rticle +; ofthe 0a#il) !ode provided the 0ilipino spouse a substantive ri%ht to have his or her#arria%e to the alien spouse considered as dissolved, capacitatin% hi# or her tore#arr). + 9ithout the second para%raph of 8rticle +; of the 0a#il) !ode, the >udicialreco%nition of the forei%n decree of divorce, *hether in a proceedin% instituted precisel)for that purpose or as a related issue in another proceedin%, *ould be of no si%nificanceto the 0ilipino spouse since our la*s do not reco%ni/e divorce as a #ode of severin%the #arital bond= +- 8rticle $A of the !ivil !ode provides that the polic) a%ainst absolutedivorces cannot be subverted b) >ud%#ents pro#ul%ated in a forei%n countr). The

inclusion of the second para%raph in 8rticle +; of the 0a#il) !ode provides the directeCception to this rule and serves as basis for reco%ni/in% the dissolution of the #arria%ebet*een the 0ilipino spouse and his or her alien spouse.

8dditionall), an action based on the second para%raph of 8rticle +; of the 0a#il) !odeis not li#ited to the reco%nition of the forei%n divorce decree. If the court finds that thedecree capacitated the alien spouse to re#arr), the courts can declare that the 0ilipinospouse is li7e*ise capacitated to contract another #arria%e. No court in this >urisdiction,ho*ever, can #a7e a si#ilar declaration for the alien spouse &other than that alread)established b) the decree', *hose status and le%al capacit) are %enerall) %overned b)his national la*. +;

iven the rationale and intent behind the enact#ent, and the purpose of the secondpara%raph of 8rticle +; of the 0a#il) !ode, the RT! *as correct in li#itin% theapplicabilit) of the provision for the benefit of the 0ilipino spouse. In other *ords, onl)the 0ilipino spouse can invo7e the second para%raph of 8rticle +; of the 0a#il) !ode=the alien spouse can clai# no ri%ht under this provision.

The forei%n divorce decree is presu#ptive evidence of a ri%ht that clothes the part) *ithle%al interest to petition for its reco%nition in this >urisdiction

9e 1ualif) our above conclusion E i.e., that the second para%raph of 8rticle +; of the

0a#il) !ode besto*s no ri%hts in favor of aliens E *ith the co#ple#entar) state#entthat this conclusion is not sufficient basis to dis#iss erbert:s petition before the RT!.In other *ords, the unavailabilit) of the second para%raph of 8rticle +; of the 0a#il)!ode to aliens does not necessaril) strip erbert of le%al interest to petition the RT! for the reco%nition of his forei%n divorce decree. The forei%n divorce decree itself, after itsauthenticit) and confor#it) *ith the alien:s national la* have been dul) provenaccordin% to our rules of evidence, serves as a presu#ptive evidence of ri%ht in favor of













erbert, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 42 of the Rules of !ourt *hich provides for theeffect of forei%n >ud%#ents. This Section statesB

S !. 6. ffect of forei%n >ud%#ents or final orders.JThe effect of a >ud%#ent or finalorder of a tribunal of a forei%n countr), havin% >urisdiction to render the >ud%#ent or final

order is as follo*sB

&a' In case of a >ud%#ent or final order upon a specific thin%, the >ud%#ent or finalorder is conclusive upon the title of the thin%= and

&b' In case of a >ud%#ent or final order a%ainst a person, the >ud%#ent or finalorder is presu#ptive evidence of a ri%ht as bet*een the parties and theirsuccessors in interest b) a subse1uent title.

In either case, the >ud%#ent or final order #a) be repelled b) evidence of a *ant of >urisdiction, *ant of notice to the part), collusion, fraud, or clear #ista7e of la* or fact.

To our #ind, direct involve#ent or bein% the sub>ect of the forei%n >ud%#ent is sufficientto clothe a part) *ith the re1uisite interest to institute an action before our courts for thereco%nition of the forei%n >ud%#ent. In a divorce situation, *e have declared, no less,that the divorce obtained b) an alien abroad #a) be reco%ni/ed in the Philippines,provided the divorce is valid accordin% to his or her national la*. +A

The startin% point in an) reco%nition of a forei%n divorce >ud%#ent is theac7no*led%#ent that our courts do not ta7e >udicial notice of forei%n >ud%#ents andla*s. 5ustice Herrera eCplained that, as a rule, no soverei%n is bound to %ive effect*ithin its do#inion to a >ud%#ent rendered b) a tribunal of another countr). +6 This

#eans that the forei%n >ud%#ent and its authenticit) #ust be proven as facts under ourrules on evidence, to%ether *ith the alien:s applicable national la* to sho* the effect ofthe >ud%#ent on the alien hi#self or herself. +2 The reco%nition #a) be #ade in an actioninstituted specificall) for the purpose or in another action *here a part) invo7es theforei%n decree as an inte%ral aspect of his clai# or defense.

In erbert:s case, since both the forei%n divorce decree and the national la* of thealien, reco%ni/in% his or her capacit) to obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of asoverei%n authorit), Section + , Rule $4+ of the Rules of !ourt co#es into pla). ThisSection re1uires proof, either b) &$' official publications or &+' copies attested b) theofficer havin% le%al custod) of the docu#ents. If the copies of official records are not

7ept in the Philippines, these #ust be &a' acco#panied b) a certificate issued b) theproper diplo#atic or consular officer in the Philippine forei%n service stationed in theforei%n countr) in *hich the record is 7ept and &b' authenticated b) the seal of his office.

The records sho* that erbert attached to his petition a cop) of the divorce decree, as*ell as the re1uired certificates provin% its authenticit), 43 but failed to include a cop) ofthe !anadian la* on divorce. 4$ Fnder this situation, *e can, at this point, si#pl) dis#issthe petition for insufficienc) of supportin% evidence, unless *e dee# it #ore appropriate













to re#and the case to the RT! to deter#ine *hether the divorce decree is consistent*ith the !anadian divorce la*.

9e dee# it #ore appropriate to ta7e this latter course of action, %iven the 8rticle +;interests that *ill be served and the 0ilipina *ife:s &Dais)l)n:s' obvious confor#it) *ith

the petition. 8 re#and, at the sa#e ti#e, *ill allo* other interested parties to oppose theforei%n >ud%#ent and overco#e a petitioner:s presu#ptive evidence of a ri%ht b)provin% *ant of >urisdiction, *ant of notice to a part), collusion, fraud, or clear #ista7e of la* or fact. Needless to state, ever) precaution #ust be ta7en to ensure confor#it) *ithour la*s before a reco%nition is #ade, as the forei%n >ud%#ent, once reco%ni/ed, shallhave the effect of res >udicata 4+ bet*een the parties, as provided in Section 6, Rule 42of the Rules of !ourt. 44

In fact, #ore than the principle of co#it) that is served b) the practice of reciprocalreco%nition of forei%n >ud%#ents bet*een nations, the res >udicata effect of the forei%n

>ud%#ents of divorce serves as the deeper basis for eCtendin% >udicial reco%nition and

for considerin% the alien spouse bound b) its ter#s. This sa#e effect, as discussedabove, *ill not obtain for the 0ilipino spouse *ere it not for the substantive rule that thesecond para%raph of 8rticle +; of the 0a#il) !ode provides.

!onsiderations be)ond the reco%nition of the forei%n divorce decree

8s a #atter of house7eepin% concern, *e note that the Pasi% !it) !ivil Re%istr) Officehas alread) recorded the divorce decree on erbert and Dais)l)n:s #arria%e certificatebased on the #ere presentation of the decree. 4 9e consider the recordin% to be le%all)i#proper= hence, the need to dra* attention of the bench and the bar to *hat had beendone.

8rticle 3A of the !ivil !ode states that Ga cts, events and >udicial decrees concernin%the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil re%ister. The la* re1uires theentr) in the civil re%istr) of >udicial decrees that produce le%al conse1uences touchin%upon a person:s le%al capacit) and status, i.e., those affectin% all his personal 1ualitiesand relations, #ore or less per#anent in nature, not ordinaril) ter#inable at his o*n *ill,such as his bein% le%iti#ate or ille%iti#ate, or his bein% #arried or not. 4-

8 >ud%#ent of divorce is a >udicial decree, althou%h a forei%n one, affectin% a person:sle%al capacit) and status that #ust be recorded. In fact, 8ct No. 4A-4 or the (a* onRe%istr) of !ivil Status specificall) re1uires the re%istration of divorce decrees in the

civil re%istr)BSec. $. !ivil Re%ister. E 8 civil re%ister is established for recordin% the civil status ofpersons, in *hich shall be enteredB

&a' births=

&b' deaths=











re1uisite >udicial reco%nition is patentl) void and cannot produce an) le%aleffect. 1avvphi1

8nother point *e *ish to dra* attention to is that the reco%nition that the RT! #a)eCtend to the !anadian divorce decree does not, b) itself, authori/e the cancellation of

the entr) in the civil re%istr). 8 petition for reco%nition of a forei%n >ud%#ent is not theproper proceedin%, conte#plated under the Rules of !ourt, for the cancellation ofentries in the civil re%istr).

8rticle $+ of the !ivil !ode declares that no entr) in a civil re%ister shall be chan%edor corrected, *ithout >udicial order. The Rules of !ourt supple#ents 8rticle $+ of the!ivil !ode b) specificall) providin% for a special re#edial proceedin% b) *hich entries inthe civil re%istr) #a) be >udiciall) cancelled or corrected. Rule $36 of the Rules of !ourtsets in detail the >urisdictional and procedural re1uire#ents that #ust be co#plied *ithbefore a >ud%#ent, authori/in% the cancellation or correction, #a) be annotated in thecivil re%istr). It also re1uires, a#on% others, that the verified petition #ust be filed *ith

the RT! of the province *here the correspondin% civil re%istr) is located=46

that the civilre%istrar and all persons *ho have or clai# an) interest #ust be #ade parties to theproceedin%s= 42 and that the ti#e and place for hearin% #ust be published in ane*spaper of %eneral circulation. 3 8s these basic >urisdictional re1uire#ents have notbeen #et in the present case, *e cannot consider the petition erbert filed *ith theRT! as one filed under Rule $36 of the Rules of !ourt.

9e hasten to point out, ho*ever, that this rulin% should not be construed as re1uirin%t*o separate proceedin%s for the re%istration of a forei%n divorce decree in the civilre%istr) E one for reco%nition of the forei%n decree and another specificall) forcancellation of the entr) under Rule $36 of the Rules of !ourt. The reco%nition of the

forei%n divorce decree #a) be #ade in a Rule $36 proceedin% itself, as the ob>ect ofspecial proceedin%s &such as that in Rule $36 of the Rules of !ourt' is precisel) toestablish the status or ri%ht of a part) or a particular fact. Moreover, Rule $36 of theRules of !ourt can serve as the appropriate adversarial proceedin% $ b) *hich theapplicabilit) of the forei%n >ud%#ent can be #easured and tested in ter#s of

>urisdictional infir#ities, *ant of notice to the part), collusion, fraud, or clear #ista7e ofla* or fact.

'(ERE)ORE , *e R8NT the petition for revie* on certiorari, and R V RS theOctober 43, +336 decision of the Re%ional Trial !ourt of (aoa% !it), "ranch $$, as *ellas its 0ebruar) $A, +332 order. 9e order the R M8ND of the case to the trial court forfurther proceedin%s in accordance *ith our rulin% above. (et a cop) of this Decision befurnished the !ivil Re%istrar eneral. No costs.

SO ORD R D.

ARTURO D. BRION 8ssociate 5ustice











9 !ON!FRB

CONC(ITA CARPIO MORA!ES 8ssociate 5ustice

!UCAS P. BERSAMIN 8ssociate 5ustice ROBERTO A. ABAD 8ssociate 5ustice

MARTIN S. *I!!ARAMA, +R. 8ssociate 5ustice

8 T T S T 8 T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultationbefore the case *as assi%ned to the *riter of the opinion of the !ourt:s Division.

CONC(ITA CARPIO MORA!ES 8ssociate 5ustice!hairperson

! R T I 0 I ! 8 T I O N

Pursuant to Section $4, 8rticle VIII of the !onstitution, and the Division !hairperson:s 8ttestation, it is hereb) certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had beenreached in consultation before the case *as assi%ned to the *riter of the opinion of the!ourt:s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA!hief 5ustice

Corupuz vs. Sto. Thomas

Documents

Transcript of Corupuz vs. Sto. Thomas