Juego-Sakai v. Republic

Case Citation: G.R. No.
224405
Date: July 23, 2018
Petitioners: STEPHEN I. JUEGO-SAKAI
Respondents: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Doctrine: Time and again, the Court has held that 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. 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.
Antecedent Petitioner Juego-Sakai and Toshiro Sakai got married in Japan on August 11,
Facts: 2000. After two (2) years, both agreed to obtain a divorce decree in said country.
Thereafter, Juego-Sakai filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign
Judgment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Camarines Norte.
MTC/RTC The RTC granted the petition and recognized the divorce between the parties as
Ruling: valid and effective under Philippine Laws.
CA Ruling: The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. However, the CA amended its decision
and recalled and set aside its previous decision ruling that the second of the
following requisites under Article 26 of the Family Code is missing: (a) there is a
valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner;
and (b) a divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry.
The CA held that since the divorce was obtained upon the agreement of both
parties, and the petitioner being a Filipino, the second requisite under Art. 26 of the
Family Code was not met. Hence, the divorce decree cannot be recognized in the
Philippines.
In addition, the CA ruled that petitioner's failure to present authenticated copies of

the Civil Code of Japan was fatal to her cause.
Petitioner’s Petitioner posits that the divorce she obtained with her husband, designated as
contention: Divorce by Agreement in Japan, as opposed to Judicial Divorce, is the more
practical and common type of divorce in Japan. She insists that it is to her great
disadvantage if said divorce is not recognized. Moreover, petitioner asserts that the
mere fact that she consented to the divorce does not prevent the application of
Article 26 for said provision does not state that where the consent of the Filipino
spouse was obtained in the divorce, the same no longer finds application.
As to the issue of evidence presented, petitioner explains that the reason why she
was unable to present authenticated copies of the provisions of the Civil Code of
Japan relative to divorce is because she was unable to go to Japan due to the fact
that she was pregnant. Also, none of her friends could obtain a copy of the same
for her. Instead, she went to the library of the Japanese Embassy to photocopy the
Civil Code. There, she was issued a document which states that diplomatic
missions of Japan overseas do not issue certified true copies of Japanese Law nor
process translation certificates of Japanese Law due to the potential problem in the
legal interpretation thereof. Thus, petitioner maintains that this constitutes
substantial compliance with the Rules on Evidence.
Respondent’s -
contention:
Issue: 1. Whether the CA erred in not recognizing the divorce decree due to the non-
compliance in the second requisite of Art. 26 of the FC when the petitioner
consented to the divorce obtained by her Japanese husband.
2. Whether the CA erred in holding that there is no substantial compliance with

requirement on the submission of the authenticated copies of the Civil Code of
Japan relative to divorce as required by the Rules.
SC Ruling: 1. Yes. In Republic v. Manalo, the Court held that the fact that it was the Filipino
spouse who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted
should not affect the application nor remove him from the coverage of Paragraph 2
of Article 26 of the Family Code which states that "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
Court observed that to interpret the word "obtained" to mean that the divorce
proceeding must actually be initiated by the alien spouse would depart from the
true intent of the legislature and would otherwise yield conclusions inconsistent with
the general purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26, which is, specifically, to avoid the
absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse
who, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country where it was
rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
Applying the foregoing pronouncement to the case at hand, the Court similarly
rules that even though petitioner participated in the divorce proceedings in Japan,
and even if it is assumed that she initiated the same, she must still be allowed to
benefit from the exception provided under Paragraph 2 of Article 26. Consequently,
since her marriage to Toshiharu Sakai had already been dissolved by virtue of the
divorce decree they obtained in Japan, thereby capacitating Toshiharu to remarry,
petitioner shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
2. However, the Court cannot yet grant petitioner's Petition for Judicial Recognition
of Foreign Judgment for she has yet to comply with certain guidelines before our
courts may recognize the subject divorce decree and the effects thereof. Time and
again, the Court has held that 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. 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. Since both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the
alien, recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts
of a sovereign authority, Section 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court applies.
Thus, what is required is proof, either by (1) official publications or (2) copies
attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents. If the copies of
official records are not kept in the Philippines, these 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.
Others

Juego-Sakai v. Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Juego-Sakai v. Republic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Juego-Sakai v. Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Citation: G.R. No.

Date: July 23, 2018

Petitioners: STEPHEN I. JUEGO-SAKAI

Respondents: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

In addition, the CA ruled that petitioner's failure to present authenticated copies of

2. Whether the CA erred in holding that there is no substantial compliance with

You might also like