At the time of their marriage, Rhomel and Florie were both Filipino citizens. When he divorced Florie in Hawaii in 2002, he was already an American citizen, thus, Florie herself filed her petition for recognition of foreign judgment in 2011. The RTC granted the petition and declared Florie capacitated to marry again, but the RTC appealed the decision. The confusion arose when the RTC applied the provisions of the RTC, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, particularly Section 20 of the said Rule, and denied the appeal because the notice was not preceded by a motion for reconsideration.
The Republic thru the Office of the Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals on the order denying the appeal, which the Court of Appeals dismissed. The CA noted the fact that even the Solicitor General and the private respondent were confused as to the true nature of the petition and the procedure that must be followed only showed that there was no whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment by the RTC.
The Issue:
Whether or not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages applies to petitions for recognition of decree of foreign divorce.
The Ruling:
The core issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SCapplies in a case involving recognition of a foreign decree of divorce.
It bears stressing that as of present, our family laws do not recognize absolute divorce between Filipino husbands and wives. Such fact, however, do not prevent our family courts from recognizing divorce decrees procured abroad by an alien spouse who is married to a Filipino citizen.
Article 26 of the Family Code states:
Art. 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.
The wordings of the second paragraph of Article 26 initially spawned confusion as to whether or not it covers even those marriages wherein both of the spouses were Filipinos at the time of marriage and then one of them eventually becomes a naturalized citizen of another country.
In the landmark case of Republic v. Orbecido III, the Court ruled that the reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.
Although the Court has already laid down the rule regarding foreign divorce involving Filipino citizens, the Filipino spouse who likewise benefits from the effects of the divorce cannot automatically remarry. Before the divorced Filipino spouse can remarry, he or she must file a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce.
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.
To clarify, respondent filed with the RTC a petition to recognize the foreign divorce decree procured by her naturalized (originally Filipino) husband in Hawaii, USA. By impleading the Civil Registry of Quezon City and the NSO, the end sought to be achieved was the cancellation and or correction of entries involving her marriage status.
In Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, et al.,the Court briefly explained the nature of recognition proceedings vis-a-vis cancellation of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without judicial order. The Rules of Court supplements Article 412 of the Civil Code by specifically providing for a special remedial proceeding by which entries in the civil registry may be judicially cancelled or corrected. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets in detail the jurisdictional and procedural requirements that must be complied with before a judgment, authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be annotated in the civil registry. It also requires, among others, that the verified petition must be filed with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located; that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest must be made parties to the proceedings; and that the time and place for hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation. x x x.
We hasten to point out, however, that this ruling should not be construed as requiring two separate proceedings for the registration of a foreign divorce decree in the civil registry one for recognition of the foreign decree and another specifically for cancellation of the entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or right of a party or a particular fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the appropriate adversarial proceeding by which the applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured and tested in terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
The RTC, in its Decision dated January 21, 2014 ruled that Florie had sufficiently established that she is married to an American citizen and having proven compliance with the legal requirements, is declared capacitated to remarry.
The confusion arose when the RTC denied petitioner’s appeal on the ground that no prior motion for reconsideration was filed as required under Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Petitioner posits that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC do not cover cases involving recognition of foreign divorce because the wording of Section 1 thereof clearly states that it shall only apply to petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages, viz.:
Section 1. Scope – This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines. [Underscoring Ours]
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court applies; Motion for Reconsideration not a condition precedent to the filing of an appeal
The CA is correct when it ruled that the trial court misapplied Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
A decree of absolute divorce procured abroad is different from annulment as defined by our family laws. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC only covers void and voidable marriages that are specifically cited and enumerated in the Family Code of the Philippines. Void and voidable marriages contemplate a situation wherein the basis for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of the marriage exists before or at the time of the marriage. It treats the marriage as if it never existed. Divorce, on the other hand, ends a legally valid marriage and is usually due to circumstances arising after the marriage.
It was error for the RTC to use as basis for denial of petitioner’s appeal Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Since Florie followed the procedure for cancellation of entry in the civil registry, a special proceeding governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, an appeal from the RTC decision should be governed by Section 3of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court and not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
As culled from the records, petitioner received a copy of the RTC Decision on May 5, 2011. It filed a Notice of Appeal on May 17, 2011, thus complying with the 15-day reglementary period for filing an appeal.
An appeal is a statutory right that must be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Having satisfactorily shown that they have complied with the rules on appeal, petitioners are entitled to the proper and just disposition of their cause.
This now brings the Court to the issue whether or not the RTC’s denial of petitioner’s appeal is tantamount to grave abuse of discretion. The Court rules in the negative.
No grave abuse of discretion
Although the Court agrees with petitioner that the RTC erroneously misapplied A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, such error does not automatically equate to grave abuse of discretion. The Court has ruled time and again that not all errors attributed to a lower court or tribunal fall under the scope of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari.
Jurisprudence has defined grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in this wise:
Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.
After a careful consideration of the evidence presented and Florie having sufficiently complied with the jurisdictional requirements, judgment was rendered by the lower court recognizing the decree of foreign divorce. It likewise declared Florie legally capacitated to remarry citing the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. Thus, the CA is correct in denying the Rule 65 petition for certiorari, notwithstanding the RTC’s dismissal of petitioner’s appeaL The dismissal, albeit erroneous, is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
The Court finds no indication from the records that the RTC acted arbitrarily, capriciously and whimsically in arriving at its decision. A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. The burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error on the part of private respondent, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated January 21, 2014 and Resolution dated June 11, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 122313 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
REYES, JR., J:
Carpio,* (Chairperson), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 212860, March 14, 2018, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. FLORIE GRACE M. COTE, RESPONDENT.
Citations omitted.