Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Medina vs. Kioke Conflicts

    Uploaded by

    Chloe Sy Galita
    This case discusses a petition filed by Doreen Parilla seeking judicial recognition of her divorce from her Japanese husband Michiyuki Koike that was obtained in Japan. The trial court denied the petition because Doreen did not sufficiently prove Japanese law allows divorce. The Supreme Court ruled that whether the evidence proves the validity of the divorce under Japanese law is a question of fact, not properly addressed through a Rule 45 petition. However, in the interests of justice, the Court refers the case to the Court of Appeals to evaluate the evidence and make a determination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Medina vs. Kioke Conflicts

    Uploaded by

    Chloe Sy Galita
    30 views2 pages
    This case discusses a petition filed by Doreen Parilla seeking judicial recognition of her divorce from her Japanese husband Michiyuki Koike that was obtained in Japan. The trial court denied the petition because Doreen did not sufficiently prove Japanese law allows divorce. The Supreme Court ruled that whether the evidence proves the validity of the divorce under Japanese law is a question of fact, not properly addressed through a Rule 45 petition. However, in the interests of justice, the Court refers the case to the Court of Appeals to evaluate the evidence and make a determination.

    Original Title

    23.-Medina-vs.-Kioke-conflicts

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses a petition filed by Doreen Parilla seeking judicial recognition of her divorce from her Japanese husband Michiyuki Koike that was obtained in Japan. The trial court denied the petition because Doreen did not sufficiently prove Japanese law allows divorce. The Supreme Court ruled that whether the evidence proves the validity of the divorce under Japanese law is a question of fact, not properly addressed through a Rule 45 petition. However, in the interests of justice, the Court refers the case to the Court of Appeals to evaluate the evidence and make a determination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views2 pages

    Medina vs. Kioke Conflicts

    Uploaded by

    Chloe Sy Galita
    This case discusses a petition filed by Doreen Parilla seeking judicial recognition of her divorce from her Japanese husband Michiyuki Koike that was obtained in Japan. The trial court denied the petition because Doreen did not sufficiently prove Japanese law allows divorce. The Supreme Court ruled that whether the evidence proves the validity of the divorce under Japanese law is a question of fact, not properly addressed through a Rule 45 petition. However, in the interests of justice, the Court refers the case to the Court of Appeals to evaluate the evidence and make a determination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    23. MEDINA VS.

    KIOKE
    G.R. No. 215723
    July 27, 2016

    Facts:

    Petitioner Doreen Grace Parilla (Doreen), a Filipino citizen, and respondent Michiyuki
    Koike (Michiyuki), a Japanese national, were married on June 14, 2005 in Quezon City,
    Philippines. Their union bore two children, Masato Koike and Fuka Koike.

    On June 14, 2012, Doreen and Michiyuki, pursuant to the laws of Japan, filed for divorce
    before the Mayor of Ichinomiya City, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. They were divorced on
    even date as appearing in the Divorce Certificate and the same was duly recorded in the
    Official Family Register ofMichiyuki Koike. Seeking to have the said Divorce Certificate
    annotated on her Certificate of Marriage on file with the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon
    City, Doreen filed on February 7, 2013 a petition for judicial recognition of foreign
    divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry pursuant to the second paragraph of
    Article 26 of the Family Code before the RTC.

    There was no opposition. On the other hand, Doreen presented several foreign
    documents to support her petition, some of them are the “The Civil Code of Japan 2000"
    and "The Civil Code of Japan 2009.

    The RTC denied the petition and ruled that while the divorce documents presented by
    Doreen were successfully proven to be public or official records of Japan, she
    nonetheless fell short of proving the national law of her husband, particularly the
    existence of the law on divorce. The RTC observed that the "The Civil Code of Japan
    2000" and "The Civil Code of Japan 2009," presented were not duly authenticated by the
    Philippine Consul in Japan as required by Sections 24 and 25 of the said Rules, adding
    too that the testimony of Doreen relative to the applicable provisions found therein and
    its effect on the matrimonial relations was insufficient since she was not presented as a
    qualified expert witness nor was shown to have, at the very least, a working knowledge
    of the laws of Japan, particularly those on family relations and divorce. It likewise did
    not consider the said books as learned treatises pursuant to Section 46, Rule 130 of the
    Revised Rules on Evidence, since no expert witness on the subject matter was presented
    and considering further that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign
    judgments and law. Hence, this petition.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the RTC erred in denying the petition for judicial recognition of foreign
    divorce
    Ruling:

    It bears stressing that Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our
    courts cannot grant it. However, Article 26 of the Family Code - which addresses
    foreign marriages or mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner - allows a
    Filipino spouse to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained
    abroad by an alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.The law confers
    jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a
    Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of
    the marriage.

    Considering that the validity of the divorce decree between Doreen and Michiyuki, as
    well as the existence of pertinent laws of Japan on the matter are essentially factual that
    calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence presented before the RTC, the issue raised in the
    instant appeal is obviously a question of fact that is beyond the ambit of a Rule 45
    petition for review.

    Nonetheless, despite the procedural restrictions on Rule 45 appeals as above-adverted,


    the Court may refer the case to the CA under paragraph 2, Section 6 of Rule 56 of the
    Rules of Court. This, notwithstanding the express provision under Section 5 (f) thereof
    that an appeal likewise "may" be dismissed when there is error irr the choice or mode of
    appeal. Since the said Rules denote discretion on the part of the Court to either dismiss
    the appeal or refer the case to the CA, the question of fact involved in the instant appeal
    and substantial ends of justice warrant that the case be referred to the CA for further
    appropriate proceedings. It bears to stress that procedural rules were intended to
    ensure proper administration of law and justice.

    You might also like