Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Republic Vs Manalo Digest

    Uploaded by

    Leoj
    57 views2 pages
    The respondent was divorced from her Japanese husband in Japan. She petitioned the Philippine court to cancel the entry of marriage in the civil registry and use her maiden name again. The trial court denied the petition, finding that divorces obtained abroad are not recognized under Philippine law. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the respondent could use her maiden name if the foreign divorce is proven. It found that the respondent sufficiently proved the Japanese divorce by submitting the divorce decree itself, authentication of the decree by the Philippine consulate in Japan, and acceptance of the divorce by both parties. Therefore, the respondent's request was granted.

    Original Description:

    for constitutional law

    Original Title

    Republic vs Manalo Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The respondent was divorced from her Japanese husband in Japan. She petitioned the Philippine court to cancel the entry of marriage in the civil registry and use her maiden name again. The trial court denied the petition, finding that divorces obtained abroad are not recognized under Philippine law. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the respondent could use her maiden name if the foreign divorce is proven. It found that the respondent sufficiently proved the Japanese divorce by submitting the divorce decree itself, authentication of the decree by the Philippine consulate in Japan, and acceptance of the divorce by both parties. Therefore, the respondent's request was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    57 views2 pages

    Republic Vs Manalo Digest

    Uploaded by

    Leoj
    The respondent was divorced from her Japanese husband in Japan. She petitioned the Philippine court to cancel the entry of marriage in the civil registry and use her maiden name again. The trial court denied the petition, finding that divorces obtained abroad are not recognized under Philippine law. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the respondent could use her maiden name if the foreign divorce is proven. It found that the respondent sufficiently proved the Japanese divorce by submitting the divorce decree itself, authentication of the decree by the Philippine consulate in Japan, and acceptance of the divorce by both parties. Therefore, the respondent's request was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic vs Manalo digest

    Facts:

    The respondent was married to a Japanese national. Subsequently, the couple filed
    for divorce in Japan. The respondent then petitioned to cancel the entry of marriage
    in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, as she was no longer married to
    her Japanese husband. The Regional Trial Court denied the petition ruling that the
    divorce obtained by the respondent in Japan cannot be recognized, due to Article
    15 of the New Civil Code.

    Issue:

    Whether or not respondent may be able to use her maiden name following her
    request for the cancellation of entry of marriage.

    Ruling:

    Yes. Provided that the fact of divorce is proven. Before a a foreign divorce decree
    can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a
    fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Before a foreign
    judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be
    presented and admitted in evidence. A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the
    divorce decree itself. The decree purports to be written act or record of an act of an
    official body or tribunal of foreign country.

    (CAVEAT) In this case, Petitioner was able to submit before the court a quo the
    1) Decision of the Japanese Court allowing the divorce; 2) the
    Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippines Consulate General in
    Osaka, Japan of the Decree of Divorce; and 3) Acceptance of Certificate of
    Divorce byu the Petitioner and the Japanese national. Under Rule 132, Sections
    24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48 (b) of the Rules of Court, these
    documents sufficiently prove the subject Divorce Decree as a fact.
    .

    You might also like