Corpuz Vs Sto Tomas

Corpuz vs Sto. Tomas G.R. No.
186571 August 11, 2010
Gerbert Corpuz, a naturalized Canadian, married Daisylyn Sto. Tomas. Gerbert left for Canada to attend his
professional commitments soon after the wedding. When he returned to the Philippines, he discovered that his wife
was having an affair. Later he filed and was granted a divorce decree by the Superior Court of
Justice, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Desirous of marrying his new Filipina fiance in the Philippines, Gerbert went to the Pasig City Civil Registry Office and
registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and Daisylyns marriage certificate. Despite the registration of the
divorce decree, an official of the NSO informed Gerbert that the foreign divorce decree must first be judicially
recognized.
Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as dissolved
with the RTC. RTC denied Gerberts petition because Gerbert was not the proper party to institute the action for
judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree as he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It ruled that only the
Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy, under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, in order
for him or her to be able to remarry under Philippine law.
SC: The unavailability of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not
necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce
decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity with the aliens national law have been
duly proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert,
pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides for the effect of foreign judgments.
Direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the
requisite interest to institute an action before our courts for the recognition of the foreign judgment.
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 aliens applicable national law to show the effect of the
judgment on the alien himself or herself. The recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the
purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.
In Gerberts case, since both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien, recognizing his or her
capacity to obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of a sovereign authority, Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court comes into play. This Section requires proof, either by (1) official publications or (2) copies attested by the
officer having legal custody of the documents. If the copies of official records are not kept in the Philippines, these
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.
The records show that Gerbert attached to his petition a copy of the divorce decree, as well as the
required certificates proving its authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the Canadian law on
divorce. Under this situation, the Court can either simply dismiss the petition for insufficiency of supporting evidence
or remand the case to the RTC to determine whether the divorce decree is consistent with the Canadian divorce law.
The COURT chose to remand the case to RTC, given the Article 26 interests that will be served and the Filipina
wifes (Daisylyns) obvious conformity with the petition. A remand, at the same time, will allow other interested parties
to oppose the foreign judgment and overcome a Gerberts presumptive evidence of a right by proving want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to a party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Needless to state, every
precaution must be taken to ensure conformity with our laws before a recognition is made, as the foreign judgment,
once recognized, shall have the effect of res judicata between the parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court.
In fact, more than the principle of comity that is served by the practice of reciprocal recognition of foreign
judgments between nations, the res judicata effect of the foreign judgments of divorce serves as the deeper basis for
extending judicial recognition and for considering the alien spouse bound by its terms. This same effect, as discussed
above, will not obtain for the Filipino spouse were it not for the substantive rule that the second paragraph of Article
26 of the Family Code provides.

Corpuz Vs Sto Tomas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corpuz Vs Sto Tomas

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

Corpuz Vs Sto Tomas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corpuz vs Sto. Tomas G.R. No.

186571 August 11, 2010

You might also like