Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...
Post a Comment

Case Digest: Medina v. Koike (G.R. No. 215723)


Doreen Grave Parilla Medina v. Michiyuki Koike | G.R. No. 215723 | July 27, 2016 | Topic: Judicial recognition of foreign divorce

FACTS:

  • Petitioner Doreen Parilla, a Filipino citizen and respondent Michiyuki Koike, a Japanese national, were married on June 14, 2005 in QC with two children.
  • On June 14, 2012, Doreen and Michiyuki filed for divorce before the Mayor of Ichinomiya City in Japan. They were issued a Divorce Certificate and was duly recorded in the Official Register of Michiyuki.
  • Doreen, on the other hand, sought to have the said Divorce Certificate annotated on her Certificate of Marriage with Local Civil Registrar of QC. She filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry pursuant to Art 26 of the Family Code. 
  • No one appeared to oppose the petition during the hearing. Doreen, on the other hand, presented several foreign documents: Certificate of Receiving/ Certificate of Acceptance of Divorce, and Family Register of Michiyuki Koike, issued by Ichinomiya and authenticated in the Philippine Consul.
  • In addition, she attached copies of Civil Code of Japan and their English translation.
  • RTC denied her petition, saying that in this action for recognition of foreign divorce, she was not successful in proving the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce. 
  • RTC observed that the Civil Codes of Japan that she presented were not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan plus that the testimony of Doreen’s relative to the applicable provisions found therein and its effect on the matrimonial relations was insufficient since she was not presented as a qualified expert witness nor was shown to have, at the very least, a working knowledge of the laws of Japan, particularly those on family relations and divorce. The RTC held that because of the applicable Rules on Evidence (particularly Rule 130, Sec. 46), since no expert witness on the subject matter was presented and considering further that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign judgments and law
  • Doreen filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES and HELD:

A. Did the RTC err in denying the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce?

Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce. However, Article 26 of the Family Code, which addresses foreign marriages or mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, allows a Filipino spouse to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by an alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.

This provision confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine validity of dissolution of marriage.

In Corpuz v Sto.. Tomas, the Court held that:

  • The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, "no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country." This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien's applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. The recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.

Similarly, Garcia v. Recio stated that in order for a divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse to be recognized in our jurisdiction, it must be shown that the divorce decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. Both the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven. 

Since the validity of the divorce decree between Doreen and Michiyuki, as well as the existence of pertinent laws of Japan on the matter are essentially factual that calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence presented before the RTC, the issue raised in the instant appeal is obviously a question of fact that is beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 petition for review.

However, because the rule 56 of the Rules of Court denotes discretion on the part of the Court to either dismiss the improper appeal or refer the case to the CA, the question of fact involved in the instant appeal and substantial ends of justice warrant that the case be referred to the CA for further appropriate proceedings.

DISPOSITION:  Case REFERRED to the CA.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Republic v. Sereno (including Summary of Separate Opinions) | G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. |  Topic: Art. VIII, Sec 5 (other topics included in the full digest) | SUMMARY:   A petition for quo warranto was filed by the OSG assailing the appointment of CJ Sereno as Chief Justice on the ground that she failed to prove her integrity during the nomination process as she failed to comply with the SALN requirements of the JBC. Several groups and individuals filed Motions for Leave to Intervene, among them Senators De Lima and Trillanes. CJ Sereno filed a Motion to Inhibit against six Justices. The Republic argues that (1) quo warranto is the proper remedy, as the Constitution does not make impeachment the exclusive mode of unseating an impeachable officer; (2) the petition is not time barred as prescription cannot run against the States; and, (3) that, at the time of her appointment, CJ Sereno was not of “proven integrity” she not having filed the required SALNs a...
Read more

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Gloria Dy v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Liability ex delicto / ex contractu FACTS: Dy, as the General Manager of Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) proposed to William Mandy (President of MCCI) to purchase a property for the company. To facilitate the purchase, the president obtained a loan from International China Bank of Commerce (bank), which was granted to the company in the amount of P20 million.   As security, MCCI executed a chattel mortgage over their warehouses. The president entrusted Dy to manage the payment of the loan. Later on, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to its default in paying.   In order to prevent the foreclosure, the president delivered to Dy, P21,706,281 worth of checks issued by MCCI, with the instruction that Dy shall use the checks to pay the loan. However, the president later discovered that the checks weren’t paid to the bank when the bank foreclosed the mortg...
Read more

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo |  G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 |  Puno. C.J. Doctrine and Concepts: The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence or administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings. Facts The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo , seeking to reverse and set aside , the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001. The original case was filed by ...
Read more