4 Republic V Cote

5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859

G.R. No. 212860. March 14, 2018.*

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
petitioner, vs. FLORIE GRACE M. COTE, respondent.
Civil Law; Family Law; Marriages; Divorce; As of present, our

family laws do not recognize absolute divorce between Filipino
husbands and wives. Such fact, however, do not prevent our family
courts from recognizing divorce decrees procured abroad by an
alien spouse who is married to a Filipino citizen.—It bears
stressing that as of present, our family laws do not recognize
absolute divorce between Filipino husbands and wives. Such fact,
however, do not prevent our family courts from recognizing
divorce decrees procured abroad by an alien spouse who is
married to a Filipino citizen. Article 26 of the Family Code states:
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in
accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were
solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this
country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and
(6), 36, 37 and 38. 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 likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine
law.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Judicial Recognition of Foreign
Divorce; Although the Supreme Court (SC) has already laid down
the rule regarding foreign divorce involving Filipino citizens, the
Filipino spouse who likewise benefits from the effects of the divorce
cannot automatically remarry. Before the divorced Filipino spouse
can remarry, he or she must file a petition for judicial recognition
of the foreign divorce.—In the landmark case of Republic v.
Orbecido III, 472 SCRA 114 (2005), the Court ruled that the
reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of
the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a
valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
the latter to remarry. Although the Court has already laid down
the rule regarding foreign divorce involving Filipino citizens, the
Filipino spouse who likewise
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b18338b1c1c9ce003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

99
VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 99

Republic vs. Cote
benefits from the effects of the divorce cannot automatically

remarry. Before the divorced Filipino spouse can remarry, he or she must
file a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce. The starting
point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the
acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign
judgments and laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, “no
sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment
rendered by a tribunal of another country.” This means that the foreign
judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on
evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law to show the
effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. The recognition
may be made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or in
another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral
aspect of his claim or defense.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A decree of absolute divorce

procured abroad is different from annulment as defined by our
family laws.—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 void and voidable 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.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; An appeal is a
statutory right that must be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of law.—An appeal is a statutory
right that must be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of law. Having satisfactorily
shown that they have complied with the rules on appeal,
petitioners are entitled to the proper and just disposition of their
cause.
Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; The Supreme Court

(SC) has 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.—Although the Court agrees with petitioner that the
RTC erroneously misapplied A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, such error
does not automatically equate to grave abuse of discretion. The
Court has

100
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Cote
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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.
Bayobay, Favila & Lee Law Offices for respondent.
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.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 65-72.

2 Id., at p. 73.

101
VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 101

Republic vs. Cote
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:
A decree of absolute divorce is hereby granted to

[Rhomel], the bonds of matrimony between [Rhomel] and
[Florie] are hereby dissolved and the parties hereto are
restored to the status of single persons, and either party is
permitted to marry from and after the effective date of this
decree.4
Seven years later, Florie commenced a petition for

recognition of foreign judgment granting the divorce before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Florie also prayed for the
cancellation of her marriage contract, hence, she also
impleaded the Civil Registry of Quezon City and the
National Statistics Office (NSO). The Office of the Solicitor
General, representing Republic of the Philippines
(petitioner), deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor to
appear on behalf of the State during the trial.5
On April 7, 2011, the RTC granted the petition and
declared Florie to be capacitated to remarry after the RTC’s
_______________
3 Id., at p. 65.
4 Id.
5 Id.

102

Republic vs. Cote
decision attained finality and a decree of absolute nullity

has been issued. The RTC ruled, inter alia, that Rhomel
was already an American citizen when he obtained the
divorce decree,6 viz.:
[Florie] has sufficiently established that she is a Filipino

citizen and married to an American citizen. Her husband
obtained a Divorce Decree on 22 August 2002 and was
authenticated and registered by the Consulate General to
the Philippines in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. [Florie] being a
Filipino citizen and is governed by Philippine laws, she is
placed in an absurd, if not awkward situation where she is
married to somebody who is no longer married to her. This
is precisely the circumstances contemplated under Article
26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code which provides a
remedy for Filipino spouses like [Florie].
Under the above cited provision, [Florie] is allowed to
contract a subsequent marriage since the divorce had been
validly obtained abroad by her American husband,
capacitating her to remarry. In this line, the court holds
that this petition be, as it is, hereby GRANTED.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is
hereby rendered declaring [Florie] capacitated to remarry
pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, in
view of the Divorce Decree which had been validly obtained
abroad by her American spouse, dissolving their marriage
solemnized on 31 July 1995 in Quezon City, Philippines.7
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on May 17, 2011.

However, the RTC, believing that the petition was covered
by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages, applied Section 20 of said Rule and
denied the appeal because the notice was not preceded by a
motion for reconsideration.8
_______________
6 Id.
7 Id., at p. 115.
8 Id., at p. 65.

103
VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 103

Republic vs. Cote
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA

claiming that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion.
In a Decision9 dated January 21, 2014, the CA denied
the petition. The pertinent portions read as follows:
The fact that even the Solicitor General and private

respondent were confused as to the true nature of the
petition and the procedure that must be followed only shows
that We cannot attribute a whimsical and capricious
exercise of judgment to the RTC.
x x x x
Besides, petitioner’s omission, by itself, is a ground for
dismissing the petition. The last paragraph of Section 3,
Rule 46 of the Rules of Court allows the dismissal of a
petition for certiorari if the material parts of the records
were not attached to the petition. “Certiorari, being an
extraordinary remedy, the party seeking it must strictly
observe the requirements for its issuance.” Although it has
been ruled that the better policy is for petitioner to be
accorded, in the interest of substantial justice, “a chance to
submit the same instead of dismissing the petition” We
cannot allow petitioner to benefit from this rule because the
need to submit the transcript of stenographic notes and all
other pieces of evidence is quite obvious for petitioner which
is questioning the sufficiency of the evidence presented.
Hence, it would be bending the rules too far if We still allow
petitioner to be excused from this lapse.10

Hence, this present petition.

The Issues

I. THE CA ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL
COURT JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION IN APPLYING THE

PROCEDURAL RULES FOR NULLITY OF MAR
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 65-72.

10 Id., at pp. 13-15.

104

Republic vs. Cote
RIAGE PROCEEDINGS UNDER A.M. NO. 02-11-10-SC IN

A PROCEEDING FOR RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN
DECREE OF DIVORCE;
II. THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
STATE HAS NO PERSONALITY TO INTERVENE
IN PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOGNITION OF
FOREIGN DECREE OF DIVORCE;
III. THE CA ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
FAILURE OF THE PETITIONER TO APPEND
COPIES OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF
STENOGRAPHIC NOTES OF FLORIE’S DIRECT
EXAMINATION AND HER JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
IS FATAL, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE VERY
SAME DOCUMENTS WERE INCORPORATED AND
QUOTED BY FLORIE IN HER COMMENT; and
IV. THE CA ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL
COURT’S DECISION DATED APRIL 7, 2011
GRANTING FLORIE’S PETITION FOR
RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DECREE OF
DIVORCE DESPITE LACK OF SHOWING THAT
HER FORMER FILIPINO HUSBAND WAS
ALREADY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AT THE TIME
HE PROCURED THE DECREE OF DIVORCE.11

Ruling of the Court

The core issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or
not the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC12 applies in a
case involving recognition of a foreign decree of divorce.
It bears stressing that as of present, our family laws do
not recognize absolute divorce between Filipino husbands
and wives. Such fact, however, do not prevent our family

courts
_______________
11 Id., at pp. 36-37.

12 Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Mariages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages.

105
VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 105

Republic vs. Cote
from recognizing divorce decrees procured abroad by an

alien spouse who is married to a Filipino citizen.
Article 26 of the Family Code states:
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the

Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the
country where they were solemnized, and valid there as
such, shall also be valid in this country, except those
prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and
38.
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 likewise have capacity to
remarry under Philippine law.
The wordings of the second paragraph of Article 26

initially spawned confusion as to whether or not it covers
even those marriages wherein both of the spouses were
Filipinos at the time of marriage and then one of them
eventually becomes a naturalized citizen of another
country.
In the landmark case of Republic v. Orbecido III,13 the
Court ruled that the reckoning point is not the citizenship
of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage,
but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to
remarry.14
Although the Court has already laid down the rule
regarding foreign divorce involving Filipino citizens, the
Filipino spouse who likewise benefits from the effects of the

divorce cannot automatically remarry. Before the divorced
Filipino spouse can remarry, he or she must file a petition
for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce.
_______________
13 509 Phil. 108; 472 SCRA 114 (2005).

14 Id., at p. 115; p. 122.

106

Republic vs. Cote
The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce

judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not
take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Justice
Herrera explained that, as a rule, “no sovereign is bound to
give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a
tribunal of another country.” This means that the foreign
judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts
under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s
applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment
on the alien himself or herself. The recognition may be
made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or
in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree
as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.15
To clarify, respondent filed with the RTC a petition to
recognize the foreign divorce decree procured by her
naturalized (originally Filipino) husband in Hawaii, USA.
By impleading the Civil Registry of Quezon City and the
NSO, the end sought to be achieved was the cancellation
and or correction of entries involving her marriage status.
In Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, et al.,16 the Court briefly
explained the nature of recognition proceedings vis-à-
vis cancellation of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court, viz.:
Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that no entry in a

civil register shall be changed or corrected, without judicial
order. The Rules of Court supplements Article 412 of the
Civil Code by specifically providing for a special remedial
proceeding by which entries in the civil registry may be
judicially cancelled or corrected. Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court sets in detail the jurisdictional and procedural

requirements that must be complied with before a
judgment, authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be
annotated in the civil registry. It also requires, among
others, that the verified petition must be filed with the RTC
of the province where the correspond-
_______________
15 Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 642 Phil. 420, 432-433; 628 SCRA 266, 281-
282 (2010).
16 Id.

107
VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 107

Republic vs. Cote
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
The RTC, in its Decision18 dated January 21, 2014

ruled that Florie had sufficiently established that she is
married to an American citizen and having proven
compliance with the legal requirements, is declared
capacitated to remarry.
The confusion arose when the RTC denied petitioner’s

appeal on the ground that no prior motion for
reconsideration was filed as required under Section 20 of
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Petitioner posits that A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC do not cover cases involving recognition of foreign
divorce because the wording of Section 1 thereof clearly
states that it shall only apply to petitions for declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of
voidable marriages, viz.:
_______________
17 Id., at pp. 436-437; pp. 286-287.

18 Rollo, pp. 65-72.

108

Republic vs. Cote
Section 1. Scope.—This Rule shall govern petitions for

declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and
annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of
the Philippines. [Underscoring Ours]

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.
It was error for the RTC to use as basis for denial of

petitioner’s appeal Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
Since Florie followed the procedure for cancellation of entry
in the civil registry, a special proceeding governed by Rule
108 of the Rules of Court, an appeal from the RTC’s
decision should be
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
VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 109

Republic vs. Cote
governed by Section 321 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court

and not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
As culled from the records, petitioner received a copy of
the RTC’s Decision on May 5, 2011. It filed a Notice of
Appeal22 on May 17, 2011, thus complying with the 15-day
reglementary period for filing an appeal.
An appeal is a statutory right that must be exercised
only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions
of law. Having satisfactorily shown that they have
complied with the rules on appeal, petitioners are entitled
to the proper and just disposition of their cause.23
This now brings the Court to the issue whether or not
the RTC’s denial of petitioner’s appeal is tantamount to
grave abuse of discretion. The Court rules in the negative.

No grave abuse of discretion

Although the Court agrees with petitioner that the RTC
erroneously misapplied A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, such error
does not automatically equate to grave abuse of discretion.
The Court has 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.
_______________
21 Section 3. Period of ordinary appeal.—The appeal shall be taken

within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order
appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall

file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from
notice of the judgment or final order.
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for
new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a
motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.
22 Rollo, p. 116.
23 Republic v. Luriz, 542 Phil. 137, 137; 513 SCRA 140, 143 (2007).

110

Republic vs. Cote
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.24
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.
The Court finds no indication from the records that the
RTC acted arbitrarily, capriciously and whimsically in
arriving at its decision. A petition for certiorari will prosper
only if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to
exist. The burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove
not merely reversible error on the part of private
respondent, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
hereby DENIED. The Decision dated January 21, 2014
and Resolution dated June 11, 2014 of the Court of Appeals

in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 122313 are hereby AFFIRMED.
_______________
24 Ganaden v. Court of Appeals, 665 Phil. 261, 267; 650 SCRA 117, 123
(2011).

111
VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 111

Republic vs. Cote
SO ORDERED.
Carpio** (Chairperson), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe and

Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—It should be clear by now that a foreign divorce

decree carries as much validity against the alien divorcee
in this jurisdiction as it does in the jurisdiction of the
alien’s nationality irrespective of who obtained the divorce.
(Dacasin vs. Dacasin, 611 SCRA 657 [2010])
Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on
Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce
decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to
determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage.
(Fujiki vs. Marinay, 700 SCRA 69 [2013])

——o0o——
_______________
** Designated Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated
February 28, 2018.
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

4 Republic V Cote

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Republic V Cote

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859

G.R. No. 212860. March 14, 2018.*

Civil Law; Family Law; Marriages; Divorce; As of present, our

VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 99

benefits from the effects of the divorce cannot automatically

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A decree of absolute divorce

Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; The Supreme Court

100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

1 Rollo, pp. 65-72.

VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 101

A decree of absolute divorce is hereby granted to

Seven years later, Florie commenced a petition for

102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

decision attained finality and a decree of absolute nullity

[Florie] has sufficiently established that she is a Filipino

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on May 17, 2011.

VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 103

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA

The fact that even the Solicitor General and private

OF DISCRETION IN APPLYING THE

9 Id., at pp. 65-72.

104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

RIAGE PROCEEDINGS UNDER A.M. NO. 02-11-10-SC IN

and wives. Such fact, however, do not prevent our family

11 Id., at pp. 36-37.

VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 105

from recognizing divorce decrees procured abroad by an

Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the

The wordings of the second paragraph of Article 26

Filipino spouse who likewise benefits from the effects of the

13 509 Phil. 108; 472 SCRA 114 (2005).

106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce

Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that no entry in a

Court sets in detail the jurisdictional and procedural

VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 107

The RTC, in its Decision18 dated January 21, 2014

The confusion arose when the RTC denied petitioner’s

17 Id., at pp. 436-437; pp. 286-287.

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Section 1. Scope.—This Rule shall govern petitions for

It was error for the RTC to use as basis for denial of

VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 109

governed by Section 321 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court

21 Section 3. Period of ordinary appeal.—The appeal shall be taken

appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Jurisprudence has defined grave abuse of discretion

Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or

After a careful consideration of the evidence presented

and Resolution dated June 11, 2014 of the Court of Appeals

VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 111

Carpio** (Chairperson), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe and

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—It should be clear by now that a foreign divorce

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like