Corpuz vs. Sto.

Tomas
G.R. No. 186571 (11 August 2010)
BRION, J.:

FACTS:
Petitioner was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through
naturalization. He was married to the respondent but was shocked of the infidelity on the part
of his wife. He went back to Canada and filed a petition for divorce and was granted.
Desirous to marry another woman he now loved, he registered the divorce decree in the Civil
Registry Office and was informed that the foreign decree must first be judicially recognized by
a competent Philippine court. Petitioner filed for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and
declaration of marriage as dissolved with the RTC where respondent failed to submit any
response. The RTC denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner lacked locus standi.
Thus, this case was filed before the Court.

Issues:
Whether or not the second paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code extends to aliens the right
to petition a court of this jurisdiction from the recognition of a foreign divorce decree.

Ruling:
The alien spouse cannot claim under the second paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code
because the substantive right it establishes is in favour of the Filipino spouse. Only the
Filipino spouse can invoke the second par of Art 26 of the Family Code.

The unavailability of the second paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not
necessarily strip the petitioner of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his
foreign divorce decree. The petitioner, being a naturalized Canadian citizen now, is clothed
by the presumptive evidence of the authenticity of foreign divorce decree with conformity to
alien’s national law.

The Pasig City Civil Registry acted out of line when it registered the foreign decree of divorce
on the petitioner and respondent’s marriage certificate without judicial order recognizing the
said decree. The registration of the foreign divorce decree without the requisite judicial
recognition is void.

The petition for review on certiorari is granted, the RTC decision is reversed and Court
ordered t6he remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings in light of the ruling.