Johansen v. Office of the Civil Registrar General
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Marietta Pangilinan Johansen, a Filipino citizen, married Knul Johansen, a Norwegian national, in Norway. The couple later separated, and Knul obtained a divorce decree against petitioner under Norwegian law. This divorce was finalized on November 30, 2018, and subsequently authenticated by the Philippine Vice Consul in Oslo. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a petition for recognition of foreign divorce in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan. The RTC initially found the petition sufficient and ordered publication and notice to relevant government agencies. After the presentation of evidence and with no opposition from the State, the case was submitted for decision. However, the RTC dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the case, involving annotation of the divorce decree on the marriage report, fell under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which dictates venue based on the location of the civil registry (DFA or OCRG), not the petitioner's residence. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the RTC's decision, arguing that venue in special proceedings is not jurisdictional and can be waived, and that the dismissal is prejudicial as it requires refiling the case. She contends that the RTC erred in deeming venue as jurisdictional after having previously ruled on the petition's sufficiency and admitted evidence. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether the RTC erred in ruling that venue under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is jurisdictional.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in ruling that venue under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is jurisdictional. Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Order of the RTC, holding that venue under Rule 108 is indeed jurisdictional and was improperly laid in the RTC of Malolos City, Bulacan. The dismissal was without prejudice to the refiling of the petition in the proper court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether venue under Rule 108 is jurisdictional: The Court reiterated that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which governs the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry, pertains to a special proceeding. As such, the specific provisions stated therein, particularly on venue, must be observed to vest the court with jurisdiction. Section 1 of Rule 108 explicitly states that the petition must be filed with the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. This requirement is jurisdictional, meaning that failure to comply therewith results in the court not acquiring jurisdiction over the case. The Court cited Fox v. Philippine Statistics Authority in support of this principle, emphasizing that the venue provision in Rule 108 is mandatory and jurisdictional. On the issue of whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction: The Court found that the petition filed by petitioner sought two reliefs: recognition of a foreign divorce decree and the correction of entries in the civil register. While the recognition of a foreign judgment is governed by Rule 39, the prayer for correction of entries falls under Rule 108. Since Rule 108 was invoked, the venue requirements of Rule 108 must be satisfied. The Report of Marriage was recorded with either the DFA or the OCRG, meaning the proper venue would be the RTC of Pasig City or Quezon City, respectively. Petitioner, however, filed the case in the RTC of Malolos City, Bulacan, citing convenience due to her residence in San Miguel, Bulacan. This constituted an improper laying of venue, which, as established, is jurisdictional. Furthermore, the local civil registrar of Pasay (if the Report of Marriage is with the DFA) was not impleaded as an indispensable party, which is also a requirement under Rule 108. Therefore, the RTC of Malolos City, Bulacan, correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
While a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree may be joined with a petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108, the venue requirements of Rule 108, being jurisdictional, must be strictly complied with.