Case 16. Nullada vs.

Civil Registrar of Manila

Facts: The action arose from a Petition 2 for registration and/or recognition of foreign divorce
decree and cancellation of entry of marriage that was filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court,
in relation to Article 26 of the Family Code, by Marlyn in 2014 with the RTC of Manila. She
claimed that on July 29, 1997, she and Akira got married in Katsushika-Ku, Tokyo, Japan, as
evidenced by a Report of Marriage 3 that was issued by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan.
The document was registered with both the Office of the Local Civil Registry of Manila and the
then National Statistics Office, Civil Registry Division.
The union of Marlyn and Akira resulted in the birth of a child, Shin Ito. Their relationship,
however, eventually turned sour and so they later decided to obtain a divorce by mutual
agreement. In 2009, Akira and Marlyn secured a divorce decree in Japan.
Marlyn and Akira's acceptance of the notification of divorce by agreement was supported by an
Acceptance Certificate 6 that was issued by the Head of Katsushika-ku in Japan, an English
translation of which forms part of the records.
RTC denied the petition.
Issue: 1. Whether or not the parties sufficiently comply the rules under the Revised Rules of
Court
Held:
1. No, Marlyn failed to satisfy the foregoing requirements.
To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with
Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court which read:
Sec. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a)
of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication
thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such
officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the
certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in
the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by his seal of office.
Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is
attested for the purpose of the evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a
correct copy of the original, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of court having a seal, under the
seal of such court.
Marlyn failed to satisfy the foregoing requirements. The records only include a photocopy of
excerpts of The Civil Code of Japan, merely stamped LIBRARY, Japan Information and Culture
Center, Embassy of Japan, 2627 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City 1300. This clearly does not
constitute sufficient compliance with the rules on proof of Japan's law on divorce. In any case,
similar to the remedy that was allowed by the Court in Manalo to resolve such failure, a remand
of the case to the RTC for further proceedings and reception of evidence on the laws of Japan on
divorce is allowed, as it is hereby ordered by the Court.

Case 17. Arreza vs. Toyo

Facts: On April 1, 1991, Genevieve, a Filipino citizen, and Tetsushi Toyo (Tetsushi), a Japanese
citizen, were married in Quezon City. They bore a child whom they named Keiichi Toyo. After
19 years of marriage, the two filed a Notification of Divorce by Agreement, which the Mayor of
Konohana-ku, Osaka City, Japan received on February 4, 2011. It was later recorded in
Tetsushi’s family register as certified by the Mayor of Toyonaka City, Osaka Fu. On May 24,
2012, Genevieve filed before the Regional Trial Court a Petition for judicial recognition of
foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry. The Regional Trial Court rendered a
Judgment denying Genevieve’s Petition. It decreed that while the pieces of evidence presented
by Genevieve proved that their divorce agreement was accepted by the local government of
Japan, she nevertheless failed to prove the copy of Japan’s law. The Regional Trial Court noted
that the copy of the Civil Code of Japan and its English translation submitted by Genevieve were
not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan, the Japanese Consul in Manila, or the
Department of Foreign Affairs. Aggrieved, Genevieve filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it
was denied in the Regional Trial Court’s June 11, 2014 Resolution. Thus, Genevieve filed before
this Court the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.   

Issue: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in denying the petition for judicial
recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry filed by petitioner 

Held: NO, but the case was referred to CA for petitioner to have an opportunity to prove the
foreign law

When a Filipino and an alien get married, and the alien spouse later acquires a valid divorce
abroad, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to remarry provided that the divorce obtained
by the foreign spouse enables him or her to remarry. Nonetheless, settled is the rule that in
actions involving the recognition of a foreign divorce judgment, it is indispensable that the
petitioner prove not only the foreign judgment granting the divorce, but also the alien spouse’s
national law. This rule is rooted in the fundamental theory that Philippine courts do not take
judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Both the foreign divorce decree and the foreign
spouse’s national law, purported to be official acts of a sovereign authority, can be established by
complying with the mandate of Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court. 
Case 18. Cercado – Siga vs. Cercado
Facts:
            Petitioners are children of Vicente and Benita. Vicente acquired by gratuitous tile a parcel
of land. Upon his death and by virtue of intestate succession, ownership over said land pertained
to them as heirs and also upon death of Benita, her share was passed on to them by operation of
law. Sometime in 1998, petitioners read in a newspaper a notice that the estate of Vicente and
Leonora Ditablan has been extra-judicially settled by their heirs, respondents herein. To prove
marriage of petitioners’ parents, they presented several documents.

Issue: W/N marriage contract, or Contrato Matrimonial, as denominated in this case, is

sufficient to prove fact of marriage.

Held:

            Petitioners failed to prove validity of marriage, hence, they do not have cause of action in
the case for the declaration of nullity of the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Vicente and
Leonora. They failed to present witness to establish Rule 132, Sec 20 Rules on Evidence that for
a private document (Contrato Matrimonio) to be admissible as evidence. Also, Sec 21 thereof
providing for a ‘proper custody’ requisite to the ancient document claimed for it also to be
admissible was not met, Contrato Matrimonio is inadmissible as evidence. Marriage is void