Asilo v. Gonzales-Betic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Shela Bacaltos Asilo (Shela) filed a Petition for Recognition of a Foreign Divorce obtained in Hong Kong, China, where she married Tommy Wayne Appling (Tommy). They separated, and subsequently obtained a divorce. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied Shela's Petition, holding that she failed to present the law of Hong Kong on divorce and that the divorce decree was obtained by her, a Filipino citizen. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Shela's Petition for Certiorari assailing the RTC's decision, citing procedural grounds: wrong remedy (should have been an ordinary appeal), late filing, and defective verification and notarization. The Petition: Shela argued that her meritorious cause should not be barred by procedural defects, that she cured the verification, and that the CA's dismissal on procedural grounds was erroneous. Substantively, she contended the ruling was contrary to Fujiki v. Marinay, that a public interest was involved, that she applied for the divorce under duress from Tommy, and that Tommy's subsequent marriage to a Filipina proved the divorce's validity. She also raised the issue of Tommy's alleged psychological incapacity.
Issue(s)
WHETHER the CA erred in dismissing Shela's Petition for Certiorari on procedural grounds. WHETHER the denial of the Petition for Recognition of a Foreign Divorce Decree was contrary to Supreme Court rulings, particularly Fujiki v. Marinay. WHETHER Shela can reclaim her maiden name and surname. WHETHER Tommy Wayne Appling's alleged psychological incapacity can be a ground for recognizing the foreign divorce judgment. WHETHER the Holy Scriptures' recognition of fornication/concubinage as a ground for divorce should be considered.
Ruling
The Appeal by Certiorari is denied for lack of merit. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issues: The Court agreed with the CA that Shela availed of the wrong remedy by filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. The RTC rulings involved mixed questions of fact and law, making an ordinary appeal the proper recourse. Furthermore, the Petition for Certiorari was filed outside the reglementary period for an ordinary appeal, rendering it a substitute for a lost appeal, which is not allowed. The Court found no sufficient reason to relax the stringent application of procedural rules in this case. On the substantive issue of recognizing the foreign divorce decree: The Court reiterated that in a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree, the nationality of the alien spouse and their national law recognizing the divorce must be alleged and proven. Shela failed to allege Tommy's nationality at the time of the divorce and his national law that would capacitate him to remarry. While Shela presented Tommy's marriage contract to another woman, indicating American nationality, this did not establish his nationality at the time of the divorce. The Court clarified that the fact that the Filipino spouse initiated the divorce is not a bar to its recognition, citing Republic v. Manalo. However, the absence of allegations and proof regarding the alien spouse's nationality and national law is fatal to the petition. On the issue of reclaiming her maiden name: The Court held that Shela cannot reclaim her maiden name and surname because the foreign divorce decree could not be recognized due to the failure to allege and prove the ultimate facts required by law. The recognition of the divorce is contingent on the actual effect of such foreign divorce on the alien spouse, which requires proof of his nationality and national law. On the issue of psychological incapacity: The Court found that the claim of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code was not meritoriously raised. The initiatory pleading lacked allegations concerning this cause of action, and the case was not tried as one for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage, with no evidence presented to support this claim. On the issue of Holy Scriptures: The Court did not give attention to the argument based on Holy Scriptures, as it was not a legal basis for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree under Philippine law.
Main Doctrine
In a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree, the nationality of the alien spouse, and the national law of the alien spouse which recognizes the foreign divorce decree and thereby capacitates said alien spouse to remarry, must be specifically alleged in the initiatory pleading and duly proven in the course of trial. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal.