G.R. No. 258130 – REGIE DAVID TSUTSUMI, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

Rule Synopsis

Time and again the Court grants liberality in cases involving the recognition of foreign decrees to Filipinos in mixed marriages and free them from a marriage in which they are the sole remaining party. After all, procedural rules are designed to secure and not override substantial justice, especially here where what is involved is a matter affecting the lives of families.

Facts

In 1995, Regie David Tsutsumi (Tsutsumi), a Filipino, and Ayahiro Tsutsumi, a Japanese married in Tarlac City. In 2016, they mutually decided to file a divorce application.

In 2018, the Japanese Embassy issued a Divorce Certificate. The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) duly authenticated the same. The Divorce Certificate was also recorded in the Civil Registry of the City of Manila.

Tsutsumi thus filed a Petition for Recognition of Foreign Divorce before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

No one interposed objections to the petition. Thus, Tsutsumi, through her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Layawen, offered pieces of evidence which includes: (i) Certificate of Acceptance with Japanese translation and Authentication Certificate; (ii) Divorce Certificate; (iii) Certification issued by City Civil Registry Office of Manila; and (iv) Civil Code of Japan. Atty. Layawen also took the witness stand and identified his Judicial Affidavit, and its annexes.

The RTC granted. On appeal by the Republic, the Court of Appeals reversed. The CA also denied Tsutsumi’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Hence, the instant petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Was the divorce sufficiently proved?
2. Has the law of divorce in Japan been sufficiently proven?

Ruling and Discussion

1. Yes. The divorce sufficiently proved.
   
   In the proceedings before the trial court, Atty. Layawen identified, presented, and formally offered in evidence the Certificate of Acceptance of Notice of Divorce written in Japanese and its official English Translation. The latter was accompanied by a Certificate of Translation which is authenticated by the DFA.
   
   Atty. Layawen also presented a Certified True Copy of the Divorce Certificate issued by the Vice-Consul of the Embassy of Japan, issued by the City of Manila Civil Registry.
   
   This Divorce Certificate was authenticated by DFA and later filed with the Office of the Civil Registry of the City of Manila. The latter further a certification attesting that the Divorce Certificate has been filed and recorded in their office.
   
   That Tsutsumi failed to present a Japanese court-issued divorce decree of judgment is of no moment. By whatever name it may be called, the Divorce Certificate supported by Certificate of Acceptance of Notice of Divorce, as authenticated by the Japanese Embassy in Manila is the best evidence of the fact of divorce obtained by Tsutsumi from her husband. As the Republic failed to properly object, the divorce report and divorce certificate are rendered admissible.
2. Yes. The law of divorce in Japan has been sufficiently proven.
   
   Tsutsumi presented and formally offered in evidence the Japanese law on divorce in its official English translation. The latter was accompanied by an Authentication Certificate issued by the Vice Consul in Tokyo, Japan at the Philippine Embassy.
   
   The Supreme Court held that the English translation of the Japan Civil Code, insofar as the nature and legal effects of the divorce agreement, is sufficient. For one, Article 763 clearly states that a husband and wife may divorce by agreement. Tsutsumi also established the consequences of divorce by agreement on the custody of her child with her former spouse under Article 766; reversion to her previous surname under Article 767; distribution of property under Article 768; and assumption of rights upon reversion to her previous surname by divorce under Article 769.
   
   The Court finally noted that it grants liberality in cases involving the recognition of foreign decrees to Filipinos in mixed marriages and free them from a marriage in which they are the sole remaining party. After all, procedural rules are designed to secure and not override substantial justice, especially here where what is involved is a matter affecting the lives of families.

dispositive

Petition granted. Decision and Resolution of the CA reversed.