Case Name Noveras v Noveras

GR No. | Date G.R. No. 188289 | August 20, 2014

Topic Marriages dissolved by a foreign judgment
Doctrine 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.
Parties involved DAVID A. NOVERAS, petitioner, vs. LETICIA T. NOVERAS, respondent.
Ponente PEREZ, J.
General Summary In December 1988, David and Leticia married in the Philippines. They then migrated to the USA
where they acquired citizenship and had two children. They acquired properties both in the
USA and in the Philippines. In 2001, David returned to the Philippines and had an extra-marital
affair. Leticia obtained a decree of divorce from the Superior Court of California in June 2005
wherein the court awarded all the properties in the USA to Leticia. The trial court applied the
principle of equity and awarded all Philippine properties to David. The CA modified the decision
and directed the equal division of Philippine properties between the two parties. The Supreme
Court affirmed the CA decision and held that the trial court erred in recognizing the foreign
divorce decree.

Facts
• On December 3, 1988, David A. Noveras (David) and Leticia T. Noveras (Leticia) were married in Quezon City,
Philippines.
• They resided in California, United States of America (USA) where they eventually acquired American citizenship.
• They then begot two children, namely: Jerome T. Noveras, who was born on 4 November 1990 and Jena T.
Noveras, born on 2 May 1993.
• David was engaged in courier service business while Leticia worked as a nurse in San Francisco, California.
• During the marriage, they acquired the following properties in the Philippines and in the USA:

• In 2001, David left the USA and returned to the Philippines.

• In December 2002, Leticia executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing David to sell the Sampaloc
property.
• In September 2003, David abandoned his family and lived with Estrellita Martinez in Aurora province.
 • David agreed to and executed a Joint Affidavit with Leticia in the presence of David’s father, Atty. Isaias Noveras,
on December 3, 2003 stating that, among others: the half of the proceeds from the sale of the Sampaloc property
shall be paid to and collected by Leticia; and that David shall renounce and forfeit all his rights and interest in the
conjugal and real properties situated in the Philippines.
• Leticia filed for divorce with the Superior Court of California upon learning that David had an extra-marital affair.
The Californian court granted the divorce on June 24, 2005 and Leticia was also granted custody of their two
children and the couple’s properties in the USA.
• On August 8, 2005, Leticia filed a petition for Judicial Separation of Conjugal Property before the RTC of Baler,
Aurora. She relied on the Joint Affidavit and David’s failure to comply with his obligation under the same.
• In his Answer, David demanded that the conjugal partnership properties, which also include the USA properties,
be liquidated and that all expenses of liquidation, including attorney’s fees of both parties be charged against the
conjugal partnership.
RTC Ruling:
• The parties are US citizens; the laws that cover their legal and personal status are of the USA. Regarding their
marriage, the parties are divorced.
• With regards to the properties in question, their property regime is classified as absolute community of property
because they did not execute any marriage settlement before their marriage. 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 trial court held that as the instant petition does not fall under the provisions of the law for the grant of judicial
separation of properties, the absolute community properties cannot be forfeited in favor of Leticia and her
children. Moreover, the trial court observed that Leticia failed to prove abandonment and infidelity with
preponderant evidence.
• Leticia is not entitled to the reimbursements she is praying for considering that she already acquired all of the
properties in the USA. Relying on the principle of equity, the trial court adjudicated all the Philippine properties
to David, subject to the payment of the children’s presumptive legitimes. The waiver or renunciation made by
David of his property rights in the Joint Affidavit is void under Article 89 of the Family Code.
CA Ruling:
• The Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s Decision.
• The CA directed the equal division of the Philippine properties between the spouses.
• Both spouses are to each pay their common children’s presumptive legitimes.
David’s Petition:
• The Court of Appeals should have recognized the California Judgment which awarded the Philippine properties
to him because said judgment was part of the pleading presented and offered in evidence before the trial court.
Allowing Leticia to share in the Philippine properties is tantamount to unjust enrichment in favor of Leticia
considering that the latter was already granted all US properties by the California court.

Issue/s
1. Whether the trial court erred in recognizing the foreign divorce decree between the parties (Yes)
2. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that there was no abandonment in this case (Yes)
3. Whether the grant of the judicial separation of the absolute community property automatically dissolve the
absolute community regime (Yes)

Ruling
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 88686 is AFFIRMED.
Reasoning
1. 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 decision. 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.
o Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, [A]s 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
o Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sections 24. [T]he 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.
o Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sections 25. [W]henever 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.
o Bayot v. Court of Appeals. The requirement on certification was relaxed and it was held that “... the
presentation of a copy of foreign divorce decree duly authenticated by the foreign court issuing said
decree is, as here, sufficient.”

2. 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.
o Article 101 of the Family Code provides that “A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when her
or she has left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. The spouse who has left the conjugal
dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to
his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal
dwelling.”
o The records of this case are replete with evidence that Leticia and David had indeed separated for more
than a year and that reconciliation is highly improbable:
▪ While actual abandonment had not been proven, 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
▪ Leticia heard from her friends that David has been cohabiting with Estrellita Martinez, who
represented herself as Estrellita Noveras.
▪ They had filed for divorce and it was granted by the California court in June 2005.

3. The Court affirms the modification made by the Court of Appeals with respect to the share of the spouses in the
absolute community properties in the Philippines, as well as the payment of their children’s presumptive
legitimes.
o Article 99 (4) of the Family Code: The absolute community terminates xxx in case of judicial separation of
property during the marriage under Articles 134 to 138.
o Article 102 of the Family Code: Liquidation follows the dissolution of the absolute community regime and
the following procedure therein should apply.
o Article 16 of the Civil Code: Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country
where it is stipulated xxx
o The Supreme Court agrees with the appellate court that the Philippine courts did not acquire jurisdiction
over the California properties of David and Leticia. Article 16 of the Civil Code clearly states that real
property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. Thus,
liquidation shall only be limited to the Philippine properties.
Separate Opinions (if any)
• N/a