SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241555. April 10, 2019.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.PEÑAFRANCIA NIÑA MARTINEZ NAGASE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241555 — Republic of the Philippines versus Peñafrancia Niña Martinez Nagase
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated February 14, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated August 10, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 106307, as well as the Decision 3 dated October 9, 2015 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 20 (RTC) in Special Proceeding No. 2014-0010, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and AFFIRM the Decision and Resolution of the CA.
Petitioner insists that the proceedings before the RTC are null and void due to respondent's failure to implead the civil registrar and her alien spouse in the action a quo as required under Rule 108. Further, petitioner maintains that the divorce in question cannot be recognized in the Philippines, as Article 26 of the Family Code only contemplates the recognition of divorce decrees obtained solely by the alien spouse, to the exclusion of those mutually obtained by a Filipino citizen and the latter's alien spouse. Petitioner's assertions lack merit.
As correctly held by the CA, respondent's action involved a petition for recognition of foreign divorce, not an action for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. Petitioner's reliance on Rule 108 is thus misplaced. To note, the RTC's directive to the Civil Registrar General does not involve the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry, but is merely limited to the "proper registration and annotation of the [RTC Decision]." 4 Such directive is but a mere incident of the issuance of the RTC Decision.
Anent petitioner's assertions with respect to the scope of Article 26, this issue had already been ruled upon by the Court in Juego-Sakai v. Republic, 5 where it was held that divorce decrees mutually obtained by a Filipino citizen and the latter's alien spouse merit recognition in this jurisdiction under Article 26 of the Family Code.
Accordingly, the dismissal of the State's appeal was proper. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 49-57. Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Rafael Antonio M. Santos concurring.
2.Id. at 59-68. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
3.Id. at 83-87. Penned by Presiding Judge Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer.
4.Id. at 87.
5. G.R. No. 224015, July 23, 2018.