Tesoro v. Landolt

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 247270. November 18, 2021.]

CRISTINA R. TESORO, petitioner,vs. THOMAS LANDOLT, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF ANGELES CITY, GENERAL CIVIL REGISTRAR, AND PHILIPPINE STATISTICS OFFICE, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 18, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 247270 — Cristina R. Tesoro v. Thomas Landolt, Local Civil Registrar of Angeles City, General Civil Registrar, and Philippine Statistics Office

The Case

Petitioner Cristina R. Tesoro (Cristina) assails the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 155878 entitled In Re: Petition for Declaratory Relief Regarding the Civil Status of Cristina R. Tesoro and/or Judicial Enforcement of Foreign Decree of Divorce:

1) Decision1dated October 24, 2018 which reversed the trial court's ruling and dismissed her petition for recognition of foreign divorce decree; and

2) Resolution2dated May 9, 2019 which denied her motion for reconsideration.

Antecedents

On July 14, 2014, petitioner Cristina, a Filipino citizen, married Thomas Landolt (Thomas), a Swiss national, in Angeles City, Pampanga. In January 2016, Thomas filed for divorce before the District Court of Zurich in Switzerland. Cristina's only participation in the proceeding was when she signed a document sent her by Thomas which she believed was for her visa. She did not understand the contents of the documents since she could neither read, write, nor speak in either Swiss or German. Later, she was surprised to have learned from a Swiss friend that the document she had signed was actually for her divorce. 3

Cristina initially wanted to oppose the divorce, but she desisted due to financial constraints and the thought that Thomas would end up leaving her anyway. She, thus, allowed the divorce proceeding to take its course. 4 She neither engaged the services of counsel nor participated in any hearing therefor. By Decree 5 of August 29, 2016 (Divorce Decree), the District Court of Zurich declared the marriage of Cristina and Thomas dissolved pursuant to Article 111 of the Swiss Civil Code.

Cristina had the Divorce Decree 6 authenticated before the Philippine Embassy in Switzerland and translated in English. Subsequently, she filed a petition 7 for declaratory relief and/or recognition of foreign judgment before the Regional Trial Court, Angeles City which got raffled to Branch 58. She essentially alleged that the Divorce Decree obtained by Thomas was valid and binding between them and capacitated both of them to remarry. As proof of the Divorce Decree's conformity with the Swiss Civil Code, she attached internet printouts 8 of said law to her petition. By Letter 9 dated May 24, 2017, Thomas, too, informed the trial court that he was recapacitated to marry following his divorce from Cristina, thus:

Greetings!

I am Thomas Landolt, I am a Swiss Citizen. I am a (sic) of legal age. I live at Neugasse 155 8005 Zurich, Switzerland.

xxx xxx xxx

I confirmed (sic) the facts that I married Cristina on July 14, 2014 in Angeles City, Pampanga, Philippines.

I confirmed (sic) that the Annex E and series with the judgment of our divorce case is true and correct.

I also confirmed (sic) that I already divorce (sic) Cristina in Switzerland and I filed the case in District Court of Zurich in Switzerland which rendered our marriage divorce (sic) on August 29, 2016.

Because of our divorce, I can now re-marry, I hope she is (sic) too.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed 10 the petition on the ground that an absolute divorce obtained abroad through mutual agreement of the parties cannot be recognized under Article 26 (2) of the Family Code; 11 only divorces obtained solely by the foreign spouse could be given judicial recognition.

The Trial Court's Ruling

By Decision 12 dated December 27, 2017, the trial court granted the petition, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby hereby (sic) GRANTED. Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

(1) RECOGNIZING the Divorce Decree dated August 29, 2016 rendered by the District Court of Zurich, Switzerland;

(2) CONFIRMING the validity of said Divorce Decree as to petitioner Cristina Tesoro; and

(3) ORDERING the Philippine Statistics Authority and the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Angeles City to register the aforesaid Judgment Order in the Records of Marriage and to annotate it in the Certificate of Marriage of petitioner Cristina R. Tesoro and respondent Thomas Landolt.

xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED.

It held that Cristina was able to establish that she had a valid marriage with her foreign spouse Thomas who later obtained a divorce in accordance with Article 111 of the Swiss Civil Code, recapacitating both of them to remarry. The fact of their marriage was never in issue. As for their divorce, this was established through certified true copy of the Divorce Decree, authenticated and translated in English by the Philippine Consul in Switzerland. 13

It was incorrect for the OSG to claim that Cristina and Thomas jointly obtained the divorce. For as Cristina explained during the trial, it was Thomas himself who initiated the divorce proceedings. Meantime, the document she signed turned out to be a mere property settlement agreement, not a contract or mutual agreement to divorce. 14

At any rate, whether Cristina and Thomas jointly applied for divorce would not bar the recognition of the Divorce Decree. The fact remained that Thomas was able to free himself from matrimonial responsibilities to Cristina; it would therefore be the height of inequality to deprive Cristina of the same treatment in this jurisdiction. 15

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the OSG 16 maintained that absolute divorce between a Filipino and a foreigner jointly obtained abroad by agreement of the parties is against public policy and cannot be judicially recognized under Article 26 of the Family Code. At any rate, the Divorce Decree and the Swiss Civil Code upon which it was obtained were not established in accordance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence prior to its amendment on May 1, 2020.

Dispositions of the Court of Appeals

By Decision 17 dated October 24, 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed. It initially agreed with the trial court that a foreign divorce decree may be recognized in the Philippines though the Filipino spouse was a party in obtaining the same. But for a divorce obtained abroad to be recognized in our jurisdiction, both the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse must be established. As it was, however, Cristina was able to establish the fact of divorce alone; she merely offered internet printouts of the alleged Swiss Civil Code as proof of Thomas' national law. Without competent proof of the Swiss Civil Code, it could not be determined whether the Divorce Decree recapacitated Thomas and, consequently, Cristina to remarry.

The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration on May 9, 2019. 18

The Present Petition

Cristina now seeks the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction and prays that the trial court's ruling be reinstated. She admits that she was not able to present an authenticated copy of the Swiss Civil Code in accordance with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence prior to its amendment, but asserts that technical nonconformity does not warrant the dismissal of her petition for recognition of foreign divorce decree. 19

She stresses that she had exerted earnest efforts to prove or authenticate the law of Switzerland on divorce. She even asked friends who went to Switzerland if they could get her proof of publication or some official document from the Swiss government pertaining to said law but to no avail. 20

To the best of her knowledge, there is no document from Switzerland which could prove the divorce law therein other than the Divorce Decree itself and printouts of Swiss Civil Code from online sources. These circumstances, coupled with her good faith and substantial compliance with the requirements, call for the liberal application of our procedural rules on authenticating official records of a foreign sovereign authority. 21

On the other hand, the OSG defends the dispositions of the Court of Appeals.

Ruling

We partly grant the petition.

The lone issue here is whether Cristina sufficiently established that under the Swiss Civil Code, Thomas was recapacitated to remarry following their divorce. Pertinently, Sections 19, 24, and 25 of Rule 132 prior to amendment states how foreign laws may be proved in our jurisdiction, viz.:

Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or private.

Public documents are:

(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;

xxx xxx xxx

Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.

Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.

Verily, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office. 22

Admittedly though, Cristina failed to offer any of the foregoing documents in evidence; she merely submitted internet printouts and translations of the Swiss Civil Code before the trial court. She, nevertheless, prays for a liberal construction of the rules of evidence so that just like Thomas, she would no longer be bound by their marital tie.

We are not persuaded.

Cristina's predicament is far from novel. Recently, in Moraña v. Republic, 23 we categorically held that mere internet printouts do not constitute sufficient proof of foreign law, thus:

Here, what petitioner offered in evidence were mere printouts of pertinent portions of the Japanese law on divorce and its English translation. There was no proof at all that these printouts reflected the existing law on divorce in Japan and its correct English translation. Indeed, our rules require more than a printout from a website to prove a foreign law. x x x (Emphases added)

Indeed, foreign laws on persons and family relations are not among those matters Filipino judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function, 24 thus requiring documentary proof as outlined in Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 prior to amendment.

Cristina, nevertheless, avers that there is no document from Switzerland which could prove the divorce law therein other than the Divorce Decree itself and printouts of Swiss Civil Code from online sources. Even then, Cristina should have secured a negative certification from the Swiss government to that effect. Otherwise, such claim is mere hearsay, hence, undeserving of weight and credence.

At any rate, there are other acceptable means of proving foreign law other than through official publication thereof or copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. In Racho v. Tanaka, 25 the Japanese law on divorce was duly proved via copy of the English Version of the Civil Code of Japan translated under the authorization of the Ministry of Justice and the Code of Translation Committee. Perhaps a similar process could be resorted to for purposes of proving the Swiss Civil Code here. At the very least, Cristina must convincingly establish that she or her agents had indeed sought the assistance of the pertinent government agencies in Switzerland in her bid to prove the Swiss law on divorce.

A point of clarification. Cristina's failure to prove Swiss law does not warrant the dismissal of her petition for recognition of foreign divorce decree. In Republic v. Manalo, the Court remanded the case to the court of origin for further proceedings and reception of evidence as to the relevant Japanese law on divorce.

Manalo was subsequently applied in Moraña where the Court held that the higher interest of substantial justice compels that petitioner be afforded the chance to properly prove the Japanese law on divorce, with the end view that petitioner may be eventually freed from a marriage in which she is the only remaining party.

And in Kondo v. Civil Registrar General, 26 the Court relaxed its own rules in the interest of compassionate justice and remanded the case to the trial court to allow petitioner therein to prove Japanese law.

Guided by our pronouncements in the afore-cited cases, a remand of the present case to the trial court is likewise proper.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated October 24, 2018 and Resolution dated May 9, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 155878 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court-Branch 58, Angeles City, Pampanga for presentation in evidence of the pertinent Swiss law on divorce. Thereafter, the court shall render a new decision on the merits with utmost dispatch.

SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J., on official leave.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz; Rollo, p. 25.

2.Id. at 35.

3.Id. at 27.

4.Id.

5.Id. at 89.

6.Id. at 48.

7.Id. at 39.

8. www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19070042/2017010100-00/210.pdf

9. As quoted in Rollo, pp. 17-18.

10.Id. at 102.

11. Article 26 (2).

xxx xxx xxx

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

12. Penned by Presiding Judge Irineo P. Pangilinan, Jr.; Rollo, p. 128.

13.Id. at 130-131.

14.Id. at 131-132.

15.Id. at 132-134.

16.Id. at 140.

17. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz; Id. at 25.

18.Id. at 35.

19.Id. at 9-15.

20.Id. at 15-18.

21.Id.

22.Garcia v. Recio, 418 Phil. 723, 732-733 (2001).

23. G.R. No. 227605, December 05, 2019.

24. G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018.

25. G.R. No. 199515, June 25, 2018.

26. G.R. No. 223628, March 4, 2020.