Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4 Republic V Cote
4 Republic V Cote
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
99
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859
100
ruled time and again that not all errors attributed to a lower
court or tribunal fall under the scope of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari.
Jurisprudence has defined grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in this wise: Grave abuse of discretion is defined as
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a
duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where
the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of
passion and hostility. After a careful consideration of the evidence
presented and Florie having sufficiently complied with the jurisdictional
requirements, judgment was rendered by the lower court recognizing the
decree of foreign divorce. It likewise declared Florie legally capacitated to
remarry citing the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.
Thus, the CA is correct in denying the Rule 65 petition for certiorari,
notwithstanding the RTC’s dismissal of petitioner’s appeal. The
dismissal, albeit erroneous, is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
REYES, JR., J.:
This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision1
dated January 21, 2014 and Resolution2 dated June 11,
2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
122313.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15
5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859
_______________
101
The Facts
As culled from the records, the antecedent facts are as
follows:
On July 31, 1995, Rhomel Gagarin Cote (Rhomel) and
respondent Florie Grace Manongdo-Cote (Florie) were
married in Quezon City. At the time of their marriage, the
spouses were both Filipinos and were already blessed with
a son, Christian Gabriel Manongdo who was born in
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America (USA).3
On August 23, 2002, Rhomel filed a Petition for Divorce
before the Family Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on
the ground that their marriage was irretrievably broken.
This was granted on August 23, 2002 by the issuance of a
decree that states among others:
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/15
5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859
3 Id., at p. 65.
4 Id.
5 Id.
102
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15
5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859
_______________
6 Id.
7 Id., at p. 115.
8 Id., at p. 65.
103
Hence, this present petition.
The Issues
I. THE CA ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL
COURT JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859
_______________
104
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/15
5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859
_______________
105
_______________
106
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859
_______________
15 Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 642 Phil. 420, 432-433; 628 SCRA 266, 281-
282 (2010).
16 Id.
107
ing civil registry is located; that the civil registrar and all
persons who have or claim any interest must be made
parties to the proceedings; and that the time and place for
hearing must be published in a newspaper of general
circulation. x x x.
We hasten to point out, however, that this ruling should
not be construed as requiring two separate proceedings for
the registration of a foreign divorce decree in the civil
registry one for recognition of the foreign decree and
another specifically for cancellation of the entry under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court. The recognition of the foreign
divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself,
as the object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108
of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or
right of a party or a particular fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court can serve as the appropriate adversarial
proceeding by which the applicability of the foreign
judgment can be measured and tested in terms of
jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.17
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15
5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859
_______________
108
Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court applies; Motion for
Reconsideration not a
condition precedent to the
filing of an appeal
The CA is correct when it ruled that the trial court
misapplied Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
A decree of absolute divorce procured abroad is different
from annulment as defined by our family laws. A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC only covers void19 and voidable20 marriages
that are specifically cited and enumerated in the Family
Code of the Philippines. Void and voidable marriages
contemplate a situation wherein the basis for the judicial
declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of the
marriage exists before or at the time of the marriage. It
treats the marriage as if it never existed. Divorce, on the
other hand, ends a legally valid marriage and is usually
due to circumstances arising after the marriage.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/15
5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859
19 The void marriages are those enumerated under Articles 35, 36, 37,
38, 40, 41, 44, and 53 in relation to Article 52 of the Family Code.
20 The voidable marriages are those enumerated under Article 45 of
the Family Code.
109
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/15
5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859
110
_______________
24 Ganaden v. Court of Appeals, 665 Phil. 261, 267; 650 SCRA 117, 123
(2011).
111
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
_______________
** Designated Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated
February 28, 2018.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/15
5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15