Facts:: Edelina T. Ando V. Department of Foreign Affairs G.R. No. 195432 August 27, 2014

EDELINA T. ANDO v.
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

G.R. No. 195432; August 27, 2014
FACTS:
Petitioner married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese National. After one year, Yuichiro
Kobayashi obtained and was granted a divorce in Japan. Said Divorce Certificate was duly
registered with the Office of the Civil Registry of Manila. Believing in good faith that said
divorce capacitated her to remarry and that by such she reverted to her single status,
petitioner married Masatomi Y. Ando. In the meantime, Yuichiro Kobayashi married Ryo
Miken.
Recently, petitioner applied for the renewal of her Philippine passport to indicate her
surname with her husband Masatomi Y. Ando but she was told at the Department of
Foreign Affairs that the same cannot be issued to her until she can prove by competent
court decision that her marriage with her said husband Masatomi Y. Ando is valid until
otherwise declared.
Prescinding from the foregoing, petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for Declaratory
Relief praying that her marriage with her said husband Masatomi Y. Ando must be
honored, considered and declared valid, until otherwise declared by a competent court.
Consequently, and until then, petitioner therefore is and must be declared entitled to the
issuance of a Philippine passport under the name Edelina Ando y Tungol.
RTC dismissed the Petition for want of cause and action for not complying with the
requirements set forth in Art. 13 of the Family Code that is obtaining a judicial
recognition of the foreign decree of absolute divorce in our country, thus not entitled to
the reliefs prayed for. Petitioners allegation that since no judicial declaration of nullity of
her marriage with Ando was rendered does not make the same valid because such
declaration under Article 40 of the Family Code is applicable only in case of re-marriage.
Petitioner moved for Reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this Petition for Review.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a Petition for Declaratory Relief is the proper remedy to compel the
DFA to issue a new passport to petitioner under her second husbands name.
2. Whether or not petitioners second marriage is valid.
HELD:
1. With respect to her prayer to compel the DFA to issue her passport, petitioner
incorrectly filed a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC. She should have first
appealed before the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, since her ultimate entreaty
was to question the DFAs refusal to issue a passport to her under her second
husbands name. The IRR of R.A. 8239 provides that before a married woman may
obtain a passport under the name of her spouse, she needed to present the following:
(1) the original or certified true copy of her marriage contract and one photocopy
thereof; (2) a Certificate of Attendance in a Guidance and Counseling Seminar, if
applicable; and (3) a certified true copy of the Divorce Decree duly authenticated by
the Philippine Embassy or consular post that has jurisdiction over the place where the
divorce is obtained or by the concerned foreign diplomatic or consular mission in the
Philippines.
In this case, petitioner was allegedly told that she would not be issued a Philippine
passport under her second husbands name. Should her application for a passport be
denied, the remedies available to her are provided in Section 9 of R.A. 8239, which
reads thus: Any person who feels aggrieved as a result of the application of this Act
of the implementing rules and regulations issued by the Secretary shall have the right
to appeal to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs from whose decision judicial review may
be had to the Courts in due course. She should have filed an appeal with the
Secretary of the DFA in the event of the denial of her application for a passport, after
having complied with the provisions of R.A. 8239.
2. With respect to her prayer for the recognition of her second marriage as valid,
petitioner should have filed, instead, a petition for the judicial recognition of her
foreign divorce from her first husband.
While it has been ruled that a petition for the authority to remarry filed before a trial
court actually constitutes a petition for declaratory relief, we are still unable to grant
the prayer of petitioner. As held by the RTC, there appears to be insufficient proof or
evidence presented on record of both the national law of her first husband, Kobayashi,
and of the validity of the divorce decree under that national law. Hence, any
declaration as to the validity of the divorce can only be made upon her complete
submission of evidence proving the divorce decree and the national law of her alien
spouse, in an action instituted in the proper forum.

Facts:: Edelina T. Ando V. Department of Foreign Affairs G.R. No. 195432 August 27, 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts:: Edelina T. Ando V. Department of Foreign Affairs G.R. No. 195432 August 27, 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts:: Edelina T. Ando V. Department of Foreign Affairs G.R. No. 195432 August 27, 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDELINA T. ANDO v.

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

You might also like