Ando v. Department of Foreign Affairs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Edelina T. Ando married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese national, in 2001. In 2004, Kobayashi obtained a valid divorce under Japanese law, which was subsequently registered in the Philippines. Believing she was legally capacitated to remarry, petitioner married Masatomi Y. Ando in 2005. Kobayashi also remarried in Japan in 2005. Procedural History: Petitioner sought a Philippine passport under her married name, Ando, but was informed by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) that she needed to prove the validity of her second marriage. She filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was initially dismissed for lack of cause of action and jurisdiction. After a motion for reconsideration, the case was referred to the Family Court. The RTC, however, again dismissed the petition, ruling that her second marriage was bigamous as the foreign divorce had not been judicially recognized in the Philippines. The RTC denied her subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the RTC's dismissal orders. She argued that the RTC erred in ruling she had no cause of action, asserting that under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, only spouses can petition for the nullity of a marriage, and that a marriage is valid until declared otherwise. She also contended that non-compliance with Article 13 of the Family Code regarding judicial recognition of foreign divorce was a mere irregularity that did not affect the legality of her second marriage. The DFA, through the OSG, argued that the petition was improperly verified, that prior judicial recognition of the divorce was necessary, that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the motion for reconsideration did not toll the appeal period.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in ruling that petitioner had no cause of action for declaratory relief regarding the passport application, considering the available administrative remedy. Whether a petition for declaratory relief is the proper remedy to compel the DFA to issue a passport under a married name when the validity of the second marriage is contingent on the judicial recognition of a foreign divorce. Whether the petitioner's second marriage is valid despite the lack of judicial recognition of the foreign divorce obtained by her first husband, and the implications for using her second husband's surname on her passport.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the RTC did not err in dismissing the petition for declaratory relief. The Court found that petitioner should have first appealed to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs regarding the passport issuance issue and should have filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce to establish the validity of her second marriage.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of Declaratory Relief and Passport Application: The Court ruled that petitioner incorrectly filed a petition for declaratory relief to compel the DFA to issue her passport. The proper recourse, as provided by Section 9 of R.A. 8239 (Philippine Passport Act of 1996) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, was to appeal to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs in case of denial, cancellation, or restriction of a passport application. The Court clarified that being told her passport could not be issued constituted a basis for appeal, even if not a formal denial. The administrative remedy must be exhausted before judicial review can be sought. Therefore, the RTC correctly found that petitioner had no cause of action for declaratory relief concerning the passport issuance. On the propriety of Declaratory Relief regarding the validity of the second marriage: The Court affirmed the RTC's finding that petitioner's second marriage could not be validated through a petition for declaratory relief, as the validity is contingent on the judicial recognition of a foreign divorce. The proper action would have been a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce, not a petition for declaratory relief. On the Validity of the Second Marriage and Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce: Citing Garcia v. Recio, the Court reiterated that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien spouse may be recognized in the Philippines, but it requires proof of both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien spouse. The presentation of the divorce decree alone is insufficient, as Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws. Since petitioner failed to present sufficient proof of the national law of her first husband and the validity of the divorce decree under that law, her second marriage remained bigamous under Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Consequently, she could not be declared entitled to use her second husband's surname on her passport.
Main Doctrine
A petition for declaratory relief is not the proper remedy to compel the Department of Foreign Affairs to issue a passport under a married name when the validity of the marriage is questioned due to an unregistered foreign divorce. The proper recourse is to first seek judicial recognition of the foreign divorce, and if the passport application is denied, to appeal to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.