Republic v. Kikuchi
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jocelyn Asusano Kikuchi, a Filipino citizen, married Fumio U. Kikuchi, a Japanese national, in 1993. In 2007, they jointly filed for divorce in Sakado City, Saitama Prefecture, Japan. Jocelyn, through her attorney-in-fact, subsequently filed a petition for the judicial recognition of this foreign divorce in the Philippines. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro City, Laguna, granted Jocelyn's petition, recognizing the divorce and capacitating her to remarry. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), moved for reconsideration, which was denied. The Republic then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision. The Republic, still represented by the OSG, filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The Republic argues that Jocelyn failed to comply with the requirements for authenticating the Acceptance Certificate and the accompanying Embassy Authentication. It also contends that the testimony regarding the fact of divorce was hearsay and that the foreign law on divorce had not been sufficiently proven. The petition invokes Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, asserting that the CA overlooked certain facts and that its findings are contradicted by the evidence on record, thereby falling under exceptions to the rule against reviewing factual issues.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's decision granting the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce. Whether Jocelyn sufficiently proved the fact of divorce. Whether Jocelyn sufficiently proved the national law of Japan on divorce. Whether the testimony of Jocelyn's attorney-in-fact was admissible.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case to the court of origin for further proceedings and reception of evidence on the Japanese law on divorce.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appellate court's decision: Given that Jocelyn successfully proved the fact of divorce but failed to prove the Japanese law on divorce, the Court found that a remand of the case, rather than an outright dismissal, was proper. This aligns with the policy of liberality adopted in cases involving the recognition of foreign decrees for Filipinos in mixed marriages, as seen in Kondo v. Civil Registrar General. The remand is for the reception of evidence on the Japanese law on divorce. On the sufficiency of proof for the fact of divorce: The Court held that Jocelyn sufficiently proved the fact of divorce by submitting the Acceptance Certificate issued by the Mayor of Sakado City, Saitama Prefecture, Japan, which was accompanied by an Authentication from the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan. Citing Moraña v. Republic, the Court clarified that when a divorce is coursed through the office of a foreign mayor and not through courts, the document issued by the mayor's office is the equivalent of a divorce decree and suffices as proof of the fact of divorce. The Court also found the authentication sufficient, relying on the ruling in Racho v. Seiichi Tanaka which held that a similar authentication from the Philippine Embassy in Japan was admissible as evidence of the fact of divorce. On the sufficiency of proof for the national law of Japan on divorce: The Court agreed with the Republic that Jocelyn failed to sufficiently prove the law of Japan on divorce. The document submitted, a photocopy of the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan stamped "LIBRARY, Japan Information and Culture Center, Embassy of Japan," was deemed devoid of probative value, citing Nullada v. Civil Registrar of Manila and Arreza v. Toyo. The Court noted that such documents do not constitute sufficient compliance with the rules on proof of foreign law, and translations by the publisher were not advertised as official. Therefore, there was nothing on record to establish that the divorce was validly obtained in accordance with Japanese law. On the admissibility of the attorney-in-fact's testimony: The Court ruled that the testimony of Jocelyn's attorney-in-fact, Edwin Asusano, was properly admitted because the Republic, through the Office of the City Prosecutor, failed to object to its presentation and even manifested that it would not adduce controverting evidence. The Court reiterated the principle that evidence not objected to is deemed admitted. The reservation made by the OSG in its Notice of Appearance, which stated that only notices or orders served on it would bind the Republic, was held to apply only to issuances of the trial court and not to pleadings of the parties. Furthermore, since the offer of evidence was made orally, any objection should have been made immediately, which the OCP, representing the Republic, failed to do.
Main Doctrine
While the fact of a foreign divorce may be proven by an Acceptance Certificate issued by a foreign mayor and authenticated by the Philippine Embassy, the foreign law on divorce must be proven in accordance with the Rules of Court, typically through official publications or authenticated copies of the law itself. Failure to sufficiently prove the foreign law necessitates a remand for reception of evidence.