In the Philippines, a foreign divorce decree obtained by a foreign spouse in a marriage with a Filipino citizen does not automatically grant the Filipino spouse the capacity to remarry. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified that the party seeking recognition of the foreign divorce must present sufficient evidence of both the divorce decree itself and the foreign law that allows it, adhering strictly to the Rules of Court. Failure to properly authenticate these documents will result in the denial of the petition, though the Court may, in certain circumstances, remand the case for the presentation of additional evidence. This ruling underscores the importance of due process and proper documentation when seeking to enforce foreign judgments in the Philippines.

From Seoul to Quezon City: Can a Foreign Divorce Decree Free a Filipino Spouse?

This case centers on Maricel L. Rivera, a Filipino citizen who married Woo Namsun, a South Korean national, in Quezon City in 2007. They lived together in South Korea, but their relationship deteriorated, leading Rivera to return to the Philippines briefly before going back to South Korea. In 2011, Rivera discovered that Namsun had obtained a divorce in South Korea. Seeking to remarry, Rivera filed a petition in the Philippines to recognize the foreign divorce decree, hoping to gain the legal capacity to remarry under Philippine law. The core legal question is whether Rivera adequately proved the existence and validity of the foreign divorce decree and the relevant South Korean law to warrant its recognition by Philippine courts.

Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce, reflecting the country’s public policy and morality. Philippine courts cannot grant divorces, even for marriages between Filipinos, based on Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code. However, Article 26 of the Family Code, as amended, provides an exception. It states that if a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and the alien spouse validly obtains a divorce abroad, capacitating them to remarry, the Filipino spouse also gains the capacity to remarry under Philippine law. This provision prevents the inequitable situation where the Filipino spouse remains bound by a marriage while the foreign spouse is free to remarry.

Despite this provision, the Filipino spouse must still undergo a process to have the foreign divorce recognized in the Philippines. The Supreme Court in Republic v. Cote made it clear that a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce must be filed before the divorced Filipino spouse can remarry. The recognition process begins with the understanding that Philippine courts do not automatically recognize foreign judgments and laws. As established in Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee, the existence of the foreign law must be proven as a question of fact, and the foreign marriage or divorce must be convincingly evidenced.

To prove the foreign judgment and the law on which it was based, Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provide specific requirements. These sections require either (1) official publications or (2) copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents. If the records are stored outside the Philippines, the copies must be accompanied by a certificate from the proper Philippine diplomatic or consular officer stationed in the foreign country and authenticated by their seal. The attestation must state that the copy is a correct copy of the original and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.

In Fujiki v. Marinay, the Court clarified that recognizing a foreign judgment declaring a marriage void does not require relitigation of the case under Philippine law. Instead, Philippine courts must recognize the foreign judgment as a fact, according to the rules of evidence. In Rivera’s case, the Supreme Court found that she failed to meet these requirements. Rivera presented notarized copies of the divorce judgment with English and Korean translations, a letter of confirmation from the Embassy of the Republic of South Korea in the Philippines signed by Chin Hyun Yong, and an Authentication Certificate by the DFA.

The Court deemed this evidence insufficient. While Chin Hyun Yong was a counselor and consul of South Korea, the evidence did not demonstrate that he had legal custody of the divorce judgment. The Authentication Certificate from the DFA merely certified his position but did not confirm his custodial authority over the document. Because the divorce judgment was an official record of the Seoul Family Court, Rivera should have presented a certificate issued by a Philippine diplomatic or consular officer stationed in South Korea, authenticated by their seal. This requirement was not met.

Regarding the South Korean law, Rivera offered a copy of the Civil Act of South Korea, a letter of confirmation from the Embassy of the Republic of South Korea in the Philippines, and an Authentication Certificate from the DFA. The Court found this insufficient, as the documents were authenticated by Chin Hyun Yong, who was not shown to have the authority to ensure its existence or the genuineness of the signature. Furthermore, Rivera presented an English translation of the Civil Act of South Korea without demonstrating its accuracy or official sanction by the South Korean government. This contrasted with cases like Racho v. Tanaka, where an officially sanctioned English translation of Japanese law was admitted.

Although Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 provide specific requirements, the Court acknowledges that other competent evidence may prove the existence of a foreign law, as illustrated in Williamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal. However, Rivera’s evidence did not meet this standard. The Court concluded that Rivera had not adequately proven the divorce judgment and the underlying South Korean law. Despite finding the evidence lacking, the Supreme Court, citing Republic of the Philippines v. Manalo, opted to remand the case to the RTC for further proceedings and reception of evidence.

The Court emphasized that questions about the validity of the divorce judgment and the existence of pertinent South Korean laws are factual issues requiring a reevaluation of evidence presented before the lower courts. The decision to remand the case reflects the Court’s willingness to apply the rules of procedure liberally, especially when marital and family life are at stake. This approach aligns with previous cases like Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, Nullada v. Civil Registrar of Manila, and Garcia v. Recio, where the Court similarly remanded cases to address insufficient compliance with evidentiary rules and to ensure substantial justice.

In Moraña v. Republic, the Court underscored the importance of granting liberality in cases involving the recognition of foreign decrees for Filipinos in mixed marriages, allowing them to be free from marriages where they are the sole remaining party. The Court’s decision to remand the case demonstrates a commitment to balancing procedural rules with the pursuit of justice, especially in matters affecting families.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a Filipino spouse seeking to remarry after a foreign divorce had adequately proven the foreign divorce decree and the relevant foreign law in accordance with Philippine rules of evidence.
Why is it necessary to prove foreign law in Philippine courts?	Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws. To be recognized, foreign laws must be proven as a fact, typically through official publications or attested copies.
What evidence is required to prove a foreign divorce decree?	A copy of the divorce decree must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the record. If the record is kept in a foreign country, the attestation must be accompanied by a certificate from a Philippine diplomatic or consular officer stationed in that country.
What happens if the evidence is insufficient?	If the evidence is insufficient, the petition for recognition of the foreign divorce may be denied. However, the court may remand the case for further proceedings and the reception of additional evidence.
Can a consular official authenticate a foreign judgment?	While a consular official can authenticate documents, it must be shown that they have legal custody of the specific record being authenticated. Their general position as a consular official is not sufficient.
What does it mean to remand a case?	To remand a case means to send it back to the lower court (in this case, the Regional Trial Court) for further proceedings, such as the presentation of additional evidence or clarification of factual issues.
Why did the Supreme Court remand the case despite the lack of evidence?	The Supreme Court remanded the case to ensure substantial justice, considering the significant impact of the decision on the petitioner’s marital status and family life.
What is the significance of Article 26 of the Family Code in this context?	Article 26 allows a Filipino spouse to remarry if the foreign spouse validly obtains a divorce abroad, capacitating them to remarry. However, the Filipino spouse must first obtain judicial recognition of the foreign divorce in the Philippines.

In conclusion, while Philippine law recognizes foreign divorces obtained by foreign spouses in marriages with Filipino citizens, the process for recognition requires strict adherence to evidentiary rules. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of properly authenticating foreign judgments and laws. The option to remand the case highlights the Court’s commitment to ensuring justice and fairness, particularly in matters affecting family law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MARICEL L. RIVERA VS. WOO NAMSUN, G.R. No. 248355, November 23, 2021