View full case

GENEVIEVE ROSAL ARREZA v. TETSUSHI TOYO

FACTS:

Genevieve Arreza Toyo, a Filipino citizen, and Tetsushi Toyo, a Japanese citizen, got married in Quezon City on April 1, 1991. After 19 years of marriage, Genevieve and Tetsushi filed a Notification of Divorce by Agreement, which was received by the Mayor of Konohana-ku, Osaka City, Japan on February 4, 2011. The divorce was later recorded in Tetsushi's family register as certified by the Mayor of Toyonaka City, Osaka Fu.

Genevieve filed a Petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry before the Regional Trial Court on May 24, 2012. She submitted evidence including a copy of their Divorce Certificate, Tetsushi's Family Register, the Certificate of Acceptance of the Notification of Divorce, and an English translation of the Civil Code of Japan.

The Regional Trial Court denied Genevieve's Petition, ruling that while the evidence proved that their divorce agreement was accepted by the local government of Japan, Genevieve failed to prove the copy of Japan's law. The court noted that the copy of the Civil Code of Japan and its English translation were not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan, the Japanese Consul in Manila, or the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Genevieve filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the Regional Trial Court. She then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in not treating the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan as an official publication and in not considering it as a learned treatise.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in denying Genevieve's petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry.

  2. Whether the English translation of the Japan Civil Code submitted by the petitioner is sufficient to prove Japan's law on divorce.

  3. Whether the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan can be considered as a learned treatise and admissible as evidence.

  4. Whether the determination of the validity of the divorce decree and the existence of pertinent laws on divorce in Japan are questions of fact.

RULING:

  1. No, the English translation of the Japan Civil Code submitted by the petitioner is not sufficient to prove Japan's law on divorce. The translation is not an official publication and does not meet the requirement of authentication. It was published by a private company and is not advertised as a source of official translations of Japanese laws. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a self-authenticating document or a learned treatise.

  2. The English translation of the Civil Code of Japan cannot be considered as a learned treatise. The Regional Trial Court was correct in not considering it as evidence, as the translator's and advisors' qualifications were not properly established.

  3. The determination of the validity of the divorce decree and the existence of pertinent laws on divorce in Japan are questions of fact that are beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition for review. However, in the interest of substantial justice, the case is referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action, including the reception of evidence, to determine and resolve the pertinent factual issues.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In actions involving the recognition of a foreign divorce judgment, it is necessary to prove not only the foreign judgment granting the divorce but also the alien spouse's national law. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas.

  • The proof of a foreign divorce decree and the foreign spouse's national law can be established by complying with Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court. It may be proven by an official publication or a copy attested by the officer having legal custody, accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer and authenticated by the seal of their office.

  • Hearsay evidence is generally devoid of probative value.

  • A published treatise may be admissible as evidence if the court takes judicial notice or an expert witness testifies to the expertise of the writer in the subject.

  • Questions of fact are not within the ambit of a Rule 45 petition for review unless there are substantial reasons for the Court to refer the case to the Court of Appeals for further appropriate proceedings.

  • Procedural rules should be applied to secure substantial justice and may be deviated from if necessary.