Art. 26.
All marriages solemnized outside Divorce was granted and judgment was
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), 3637 and 38. (17a)
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. (As amended by Executive
Order 227)
G.R. No. 188289 August 20,
2014
DAVID A. NOVERAS, Petitioner,
vs.
LETICIA T. NOVERAS, Respondent.
Facts:
David and Leticia Noveras are US
citizens who acquired properties in the
USA and in the Philippines during the
marriage. They have 2 children.
According to Leticia, sometime in
September 2003, David abandoned his
family and lived with his mistress.
Further, she claimed that they executed
a joint affidavit where he renounced all
his rights and interest in the conjugal
and real properties situated in the
Philippines.
After learning of David’s extra-marital
affair, Leticia filed a petition for divorce
before the Superior Court of California.
duly entered on 29 June 2005. The
California court granted to Leticia the
custody of her two children, as well as
all the couple’s properties in the USA.
Leticia then filed a petition for Judicial
Separation of Conjugal Property before
the RTC of Baler, Aurora. She relied on
the 3 December 2003 Joint Affidavit and
David’s failure to comply with his
obligation under the same. David
demanded that the conjugal partnership
properties, which also include the USA
properties, be liquidated since a divorce
decree was already entered.
The RTC regarded that since the parties
are US citizens, their marriage is hereby
declared DISSOLVED pursuant to the
divorce decree. Thus, the trial court
considered the petition filed by Leticia
as one for liquidation of the absolute
community of property instead of an
action for judicial separation of conjugal
property. Their property was classified
as absolute community because they
did not execute any marriage settlement
before the solemnization of their
marriage pursuant to Article 75 of the
Family Code.
Then, the trial court ruled that in
accordance with the doctrine of
processual presumption, Philippine law
should apply because the court cannot
take judicial notice of the US law since
the parties did not submit any proof of
their national law. The court adjudicated
the Philippine properties to David
subject to the payment of the children’s
legitimes.
On appeal, the CA modified the decision
and directed the equal division of the
Philippine properties between the
spouses and both should pay their
children the amount of P520,000.00.
In the present petition, David insists that
CA should have recognized the
California Judgment which awarded the
Philippine properties to him and allowing
Leticia to share in the Philippine
properties is tantamount to unjust
enrichment considering that she was
already granted all US properties by the
California court.
Issues
1. Whether the marriage between David
and Leticia has been dissolved pursuant
to the divorce decree issued by the
Superior Court of California;
2. Whether the filing of the judicial
separation of property is proper in
accordance with the Family Code
Held:
1. The trial court erred in recognizing the
divorce decree which severed the bond
of marriage between the parties.
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. A copy of the foreign
judgment may be admitted in evidence
and proven as a fact under Rule 132,
Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule
39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the
record of public documents of a
sovereign authority or tribunal may be
proved by: (1) an official publication
thereof or (2) a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody thereof.
Such official publication or copy must be
accompanied, if the record is not kept in
the Philippines, with a certificate that the
attesting officer has the legal custody
thereof. The certificate may be issued
by any of the authorized Philippine
embassy or consular officials stationed
in the foreign country in which the
record is kept, and authenticated by the
seal of his office. The attestation must
state, in substance, that the copy is a
correct copy of the original, or a specific
part thereof, asthe case may be, and
must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer.
Section 25 of the same Rule states that
whenever a copy of a document or
record is attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must state, in
substance, that the copy is a correct
copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof, as the case may be. The
attestation must be under the official
seal of the attesting officer, if there be
any, or if he be the clerk of a court
having a seal, under the seal of such
court.
Based on the records, only the divorce
decree was presented in evidence. The
required certificates to prove its
authenticity, as well as the pertinent
California law on divorce were not
presented. Even if we apply the doctrine
of processual presumption,divorce is not
recognized between Filipino citizens in
the Philippines. Absent a valid
recognition of the divorce decree, it
follows that the parties are still legally
married in the Philippines. The trial court
thus erred in proceeding directly to
liquidation.
2. Yes. Art 135 of the Family Code
provides that: Any of the following shall
be considered sufficient cause for
judicial separation of property:
Xxxx
(6) That at the time of the petition, the
spouses have been separated in fact for
at least one year and reconciliation is
highly improbable.
The records of this case are replete with
evidence that both parties had indeed
separated for more than a year and that
reconciliation is highly improbable. First,
it is undisputed that the spouses had
been living separately since 2003 when
David decided to go back to the
Philippines to set up his own business.
Second, Leticia heard from her friends
that David has been cohabiting with
Estrellita Martinez, who represented
herself as Estrellita Noveras. Editha
Apolonio, who worked in the hospital
where David was once confined,
testified that she saw the name of
Estrellita listed as the wife of David in
the Consent for Operation form. Third
and more significantly, they had filed for
divorce and it was granted by the
California court in June 2005.
Having established that Leticia and
David had actually separated for at least
one year, the petition for judicial
separation of absolute community of
property should be granted.
VDA. DE CATALAN V. CATALAN-LEE
G. R. No. 183622, [February 08,
2012]
DOCTRINE:
Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which
maybe recognized in the Philippines,
provided they are valid ac-cording to their
national law.
FACTS:
Orlando B. Catalan, a naturalized American
citizen,allegedly obtained a divorce in the
United States from his first wife, Felicitas
Amor. He then contracted a second
marriage with petitioner.
When Orlando died intestate in the
Philippines, petitioner filed with the RTC a
Petition for the issuance of letters of
administration for her appointment as
administratrix of the intestate estate. While
the case was pending, respondent Louella
A. Catalan-Lee, one of the children of
Orlando from his first marriage, filed a
similar petition with the RTC. The two cases
were consolidated.
Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the
petition filed by the respondent on the
ground of litis pendentia. Respondent
alleged that petitioner was not considered
an interested person qualified to file the
petition. Respondent further alleged that a
criminal case for bigamy was filed against
petitioner by Felicitas Amor contending that
petitioner contracted a second marriage to
Orlando despite having been married to one
Eusebio Bristol.
However, the RTC acquitted petitioner of
bigamy and ruled that since the deceased
was a divorced American citizen, and that
divorce was not recognized under Philippine
jurisdiction, the marriage between him and
petitioner was not valid. The RTC took note
of the action for declaration of nullity then
pending filed by Felicitas Amor against the
deceased and petitioner. It considered the
pending action to be a prejudicial question
in determining the guilt of petition-er for
the crime of bigamy. The RTC also found
that petitioner had never been married
to Bristol.
The RTC subsequently dismissed the
Petition for the issuance of letters of
administration filed by petitioner and
granted that of private respondent. Contrary
to its findings in Crim. Case No. 2699-A, the
RTC held that the marriage between
petitioner and Eusebio Bristol was valid and
subsisting when she married Orlando. The
RTC held that petitioner was not an
interested party who may file said petition.
The CA affirmed the decision of the lower
court.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the acquittal of petitioner in
the crim. case for bigamy meant that the
marriage with Bristol was still valid.
2. Whether the divorce obtained abroad by
Orlando may be recognized under
Philippine jurisdiction.
HELD:
It is imperative for the trial court to first
determine the validity of the divorce to
ascertain the rightful party to be issued the
letters of administration over the estate of
Orlando. Petition is partially granted. Case
is remanded to RTC.
1. No. The RTC in the special proceedings
failed to appreciate the finding of the RTC
in Crim. Case that petitioner was never
married to Eusebio Bristol. It concluded
that, because petitioner was acquitted of
bigamy, it follows that the first marriage
with Bristol still existed and was valid.
2. Yes. Under the principles of comity,
Philippine jurisdiction recognizes a valid
divorce obtained by a spouse of for-eign
nationality. Aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, which may be recognized in the
Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law.
Nonetheless, the fact of divorce must still
first be proven by the divorce decree itself.
The best evidence of a judgment is the
judgment itself. Under Sections 24 and 25 of
Rule 132, a writing or document may be
proven as a public or official record of a
foreign country by either (1) an official
publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by
the officer having legal custody of the
document. If the record is not kept in the
Philippines, such copy must be (a)
accompanied by a certificate issued by the
proper diplomatic or consular officer in the
Philippine foreign service stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept
and (b) authenticated by the seal of his
office.
Moreover, the burden of proof lies with the
“party who alleges the existence of a fact or
thing necessary in the prosecution or
defense of an action.” In civil cases,
plaintiffs have the burden of proving the
material allegations of the complaint when
those are denied by the answer; and
defendants have the burden of proving the
material allegations in their answer when
they introduce new matters. It is well-
settled in our jurisdiction that our courts
cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.
Like any other facts, they must be alleged
and proved.
It appears that the trial court no longer
required petitioner to prove the validity of
Orlando’s divorce under the laws of the
United States and the marriage between
petitioner and the deceased. Thus, there is a
need to remand the proceedings to the trial
court for further reception of evidence to
establish the fact of divorce.
NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, FOR AND IN
BEHALF OF HER MINOR
CHILD RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM v.
ERNST JOHAN
BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM
G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014, THIRD
DIVISION, (Peralta, J.)
Foreign law should not be applied when its
application would work undeniable injustice
to the citizens or residents of the forum.
Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem
contracted marriage In Holland. They were
blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo
Van Wilsem.
Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended
by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by
the appropriate Court of Holland. Thereafter,
Norma and her son came home to the
Philippines. According to Norma, Ernst made
a promise to provide monthly
support to their son. However, since the
arrival of petitioner and her son in the
Philippines, Ernst never gave support to
Roderigo. Norma filed a complaint against
Ernst for violation of R.A. No. 9262 for the
latter’s unjust refusal to support his
minor child with petitioner.
The trial court dismissed the complaint since
the facts charged in the
information do not constitute an offense
with respect to the accused, he being an
alien.
ISSUE:
Does a foreign national have an obligation
to support his minor child under
Philippine law?
RULING:
Yes, since Ernst is a citizen of Holland or the
Netherlands, we agree with
the RTC that he is subject to the laws of his
country, not to Philippine law, as to
whether he is obliged to give support to his
child, as well as the consequences of his
failure to do so. This does not, however,
mean that Ernst is not obliged to support
Norma’s son altogether. In international law,
the party who wants to have a foreign
law applied to a dispute or case has the
burden of proving the foreign law. In the
present case, Ernst hastily concludes that
being a national of the Netherlands, he is
governed by such laws on the matter of
provision of and capacity to support. While
Ernst pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in
advancing his position that he is not
obliged to support his son, he never proved
the same. It is incumbent upon Ernst to
plead and prove that the national law of the
Netherlands does not impose upon the
parents the obligation to support their child.
Foreign laws do not prove themselves
in our jurisdiction and our courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of them.
Like any other fact, they must be alleged and
proved.
Moreover, foreign law should not be applied
when its application would
work undeniable injustice to the citizens or
residents of the forum. To give justice is
the most important function of law; hence, a
law, or judgment or contract that is
obviously unjust negates the fundamental
principles of Conflict of Laws. Applying
the foregoing, even if the laws of the
Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s
obligation to support his child nor penalize
the non-compliance therewith, such
obligation is still duly enforceable in the
Philippines because it would be of great
injustice to the child to be denied of financial
support when the latter is entitled thereto.
Fujiki v Marinay
MINORU FUJIKI, Petitioner, -versus- MARIA
PAZ GALELA MARINAY, SHINICHI
MAEKARA, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF
QUEZON CITY, and THE ADMINISTRATOR
AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE
NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE,
FACTS:
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese
national who married respondent Maria Paz
Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines
on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not sit
well with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki
could not bring his wife to Japan where he
resides. Eventually, they lost contact with
each other.
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese,
Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the first
marriage being dissolved, Marinay and
Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in
Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought
Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay
allegedly suffered physical abuse from marriage where one of the parties is a
Maekara. She left Maekara and started to citizen of a foreign country. Moreover, in
contact Fujiki. Juliano-Llave v. Republic, this Court held that
the rule in A.M. No. 02- 11-10-SC that only
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they
the husband or wife can file a declaration of
were able to reestablish their relationship. In
nullity or annulment of marriage “does not
2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a
apply if the reason behind the petition is
judgment from a family court in Japan which
bigamy.” While the Philippines has no
declared the marriage between Marinay and
divorce law, the Japanese Family Court
Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. On
judgment is fully consistent with Philippine
14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the
public policy, as bigamous marriages are
RTC entitled: “Judicial Recognition of Foreign
declared void from the beginning under
Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of
Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a
Marriage).”
crime under Article 349 of the Revised Penal
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS: Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the existence of
the Japanese Family Court judgment in
(1) RTC: dismissed the petition for "Judicial
accordance with Rule 132, Sections 24 and
Recognition of Foreign Judgment ·(or
25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of
Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)"
the Rules of Court.
based on improper venue and the lack of
personality of petitioner, Minoru Fujiki, to file
the petition.
(2) Whether a husband or wife of a prior
ISSUES & RULING: marriage can file a petition to recognize a
foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent
(1) Whether the Rule on Declaration of
marriage between his or her spouse and a
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.
Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC) is applicable. Yes. “[t]he recognition of the foreign divorce
decree may be made in a Rule 108
No. Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity
proceeding itself, as the object of special
of Void Marriages and Annulment of
proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the
Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC)
Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the
does not apply in a petition to recognize a
status or right of a party or a particular fact.”
foreign judgment relating to the status of a

 Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court
states:
Sec. 1. Who may file petition. — Any person
interested in any act, event, order or decree
concerning the civil status of persons which
has been recorded in the civil register, may
file a verified petition for the cancellation or
correction of any entry relating thereto, with
the Regional Trial Court of the province
where the corresponding civil registry is
located. (Emphasis supplied)
There is no doubt that the prior spouse has
a personal and material interest in
maintaining the integrity of the marriage he
contracted and the property relations arising
from it.
(3) Whether the Regional Trial Court can
recognize the foreign judgment in a
proceeding for cancellation or correction of
entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court.
Yes. There is neither circumvention of the
substantive and procedural safeguards of
marriage under Philippine law, nor of the
jurisdiction of Family Courts under R.A. No.
8369. A recognition of a foreign judgment is
not an action to nullify a marriage. It is an
action for Philippine courts to recognize the
effectivity of a foreign judgment, which
presupposes a case which was already tried
and decided under foreign law.
In the recognition of foreign judgments,
Philippine courts are incompetent to
substitute their judgment on how a case was
decided under foreign law. They cannot
decide on the “family rights and duties, or
on the status, condition and legal capacity”
of the foreign citizen who is a party to the
foreign judgment. Thus, Philippine courts are
limited to the question of whether to extend
the effect of a foreign judgment in the
Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to
the status of a marriage involving a citizen of
a foreign country, Philippine courts only
decide whether to extend its effect to the
Filipino party, under the rule of lex nationalii
expressed in Article 15 of the Civil Code.
For this purpose, Philippine courts will only
determine (1) whether the foreign judgment
is inconsistent with an overriding public
policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any
alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic
ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e.
want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of
law or fact. If there is neither inconsistency
with public policy nor adequate proof to
repel the judgment, Philippine courts should,
by default, recognize the foreign judgment
as part of the comity of nations.