jfl!lanila: 3r.epublic of Tbe Llbihppine% Upreme (!court
jfl!lanila: 3r.epublic of Tbe Llbihppine% Upreme (!court
jfl!lanila: 3r.epublic of Tbe Llbihppine% Upreme (!court
GESMUNDO, CJ.,
- versus - Chairperson,
HERNANDO,
ZALAMEDA,
ROSARIO, and
MARQUEZ, JJ.
JOCELYN ASUSANO
KIKUCID, as represented by her
Attorney-In-Fact, Edwin E. Promulgated:
~
Asusano,
Respondent. JUrJ 2 2 2022
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
HERNANDO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assails the November 15, 2018
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 110750, which
affirmed the June 17, 2016 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San
Pedro City, Laguna, Branch 93, in Sp. Proc. Case No. SPL-0990-15 judicially
recognizing the divorce between respondent Jocelyn Asusano Kikuchi
4
(Jocelyn), Filipino, and Fumio U. Kikuchi (Fumio), Japanese.
i2 Id.
13 Id. at 63-64.
14 Id. at 65-68.
15 Id. at 69-76.
16 Rollo, p. 39.
17 Id. at 39-40.
18 Id at 87-89. Penned by Commissioner Atty. Catherin B. Beran-Baraoidan.
19 Id. at 89.
v1.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 243646
The Philippine Statistics Authority, the Local Civil Registrar of San Pedro,
Laguna and the Department of Foreign Affairs are hereby directed to annotate
the said Divorce Certificate in the Report of Marriage of petitioner and
respondent on file in their respective offices.
SO ORDERED. 20
The trial court held that Jocelyn indeed was able to establish the fact of
divorce and the national law of Japan. 21
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Order dated June 17, 2016
of the RTC, Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna, in Sp. Proc. Case No. SPL-0990-15,
is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 25
The CA held that Jocelyn was able to present documents proving the fact
of divorce and the law of Japan. 26 It also noted that the Republic did not deny
the existence of the divorce decree nor challenged the jurisdiction of the divorce
court. 27
28
Undeterred, the Republic, still through the OSG, filed the instant Petition,
arguing that Jocelyn failed to comply with the requirements of authentication
and proof of documents concerning the Acceptance Certificate, and the
Authentication by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan; that Edwin's
testimony as to the fact of divorce should have been excluded for being hearsay;
and that the foreign law had not been proven. 29
Issue
Our Ruling
Preliminarily, the Court notes that the questions raised by the Republic are
factual in nature. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, such questions are
generally barred as the Court is not a trier of facts. 30 However, the rule admits
of exceptions, viz.:
Here, the Republic posits that the CA manifestly overlooked certain facts
which, if considered, would justify a different conclusion, and that the factual
findings are contradicted by the evidence on record. 32 As these are both
recognized exceptions to the rule, the Court will proceed to review the factual
findings of the lower courts.
29 Id.atl6-31.
JO RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 1.
" Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Comendador, G.R. No. 236804, February 1, 2021, citing Carbonell
v. Carbonell-Mendes, 762 Phil. 529, 537 (2015).
32 Rollo, p. 13.
7.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 243646
Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by the court, the party
pleading it must first prove the fact of divorce and its conformity to the foreign
law allowing it. 35 As both of these purport to be official acts of a sovereign
authority, the required proof are their official publications or copies attested by
the officers having legal custody thereof, pursuant to Section 24, Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court. 36
-,\_
.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 243646
The Court is not persuaded. Records show that the Divorce Report is
what the Government of Japan issued to petitioner and her husband when
they applied for divorce. There was no "divorce judgment" to speak of
because the divorce proceeding was not coursed through Japanese courts
but through the Office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City in Hiroshima
Prefecture, Japan. In any event, since the Divorce Report was issued by the
Office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City, the same is deemed an act of an official
body in Japan. By whatever name it is called, the Divorce Report is clearly
the equivalent of the "Divorce Decree" in Japan, hence, the best evidence of
the fact of divorce obtained by petitioner and her former husband. 39
(Emphasis supplied)
Similarly here, the divorce was coursed not through Japanese courts but
through the Mayor of Sakado City, Saitama Prefecture. The Acceptance
Certificate was what was issued to Jocelyn and Furnio when they filed their
divorce before the mayor. Hence, it already suffices as proof of the fact of
divorce.
We disagree.
'' Id.
0
• Rollo, pp. 23-27.
41 834 Phil. 21 (2018).
Decision 7 G.R. No. 243646
genuine. Applying Rule 132, Section 24, the Certificate of Acceptance of the
Report of Divorce is admissible as evidence of the fact of divorce between
petitioner and respondent. 42 (Citation omitted, emphasis supplied)
Further, while the Republic insists that it could not have objected to the
offer because it was not served a copy of Jocelyn's formal offer of evidence-
implying that the OCP's failure to object did not bind the Republic because the
authority conferred to it by the OSG is subject to the reservation that the latter
be furnished with notices of "hearings, orders and other court processes" 45-
We still uphold the admission of evidence because the reservation does not
cover pleadings of the parties. It is limited only to issuances of the trial court.
Besides, the records show that the offer was done orally. 46 Since objection
to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer, 47 the OSG,
even if served a copy of all court processes and pleadings of the parties, still
could not have personally made the objection because it was not present during
the hearing and was instead duly represented by the OCP.
To prove that the divorce was valid under Japanese laws, Jocelyn
submitted a photocopy of the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan,
published by Eibun-Horei-Sha, Inc. and stamped with "LIBRARY, Japan
Information and Culture Center, Embassy of Japan, 2627 Roxas Boulevard,
42 Id. at 34-35.
43
Rollo, pp. 28-29. .. ·
44 Spouses Enriquez v. fsarog Line Transport, Inc., 800 Phil. 145, 149 (2016), c1tmg People v. Lopez, 658 Phil.
Pasay City." 48 The Republic assails the document for being insufficient to prove
the law of Japan on divorce. 49
Further, in Arreza v. Toyo, 52 the Court noted that the translations by Eibun-
Horei-Sha, Inc. (the publisher of the document submitted by Jocelyn) are not
advertised as a source of official translations of Japanese laws. 53
Given that Jocelyn was able to prove the fact of divorce but not the
Japanese law on divorce, a rema,'1d of the case rather than its outright dismissal
is proper. This is consistent with the policy of liberality that the Court has
adopted in cases involving the recognition of foreign decrees to Filipinos in
mixed marriages. 54
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
'ChiefJustice
Chairperson
DA
-~ ~
J ~ S P . M A QUEZ.
~::~;ate Justice
Decision 10 G.R. No. 243646
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.