7. Corpuz vs.

Sto Tomas

Facts:

Gerbert Corpuz, a former Filipino citizen but now a naturalized Canadian, married
Daisylyn Sto. Tomas, a Filipina. He soon left to Canada after their wedding due to work
commitments. He returned to Philippines on April 2005 only to find out Daisylyn has an
affair with another man. Gerbert returned to Canada to file a divorce that took effect on
January 2006.

Two years later, he found another Filipina and wanted to marry her in the Philippines. He
went to Pasig City Registrar's Office to register his Canadian divorce decree but was
denied considering that his marriage with Daisylyn still subsists under Philippine law,
that the foregin divorce must be recognized judicially by the Philippine court.

Gerbert subsequently filed at the Regional Trial Court a judicial recognition of foreign
divorce but was subsequently denied since he is not the proper party and according to
Article 26 of the Civil Code, only a Filipino spouse can avail the remedy.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:

(1) RTC: Gerbert was not the proper party to institute the action for judicial recognition
of the foreign divorce decree as he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It ruled that only
the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy, under the second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code

ISSUE: whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to aliens
the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce
decree.

Ruling:
Yes.

The General Rule is that the alien spouse can claim no right under the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive right it establishes is
in favor of the Filipino spouse. In other words, only the Filipino spouse can invoke the
second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code; the alien spouse can claim no right
under this provision.
The unavailability of the second paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not
necessarily strip the petitioner of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his
foreign divorce decree. The petitioner, being a naturalized Canadian citizen now, is clothed by
the presumptive evidence of the authenticity of foreign divorce decree with conformity to
alien’s national law.
In a divorce situation, we have declared, no less, that the divorce obtained by an alien
abroad may be recognized in the Philippines, provided the divorce is valid according to
his or her national law.

The case is remanded to the RTC to determine whether the divorce decree is consistent
with the Canadian divorce law.

Pasig City Civil Registry Office has already recorded the divorce decree on Gerbert
and Daisylyn’s marriage certificate based on the mere presentation of the decree.

The Pasig City Civil Registry acted out of line when it registered the foreign decree of divorce on
the petitioner and respondent’s marriage certificate without judicial order recognizing the said
decree. The registration of the foreign divorce decree without the requisite judicial recognition
is void.

While the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry, the law and
the submission of the decree by themselves do not ipso facto authorize the
decree’s registration. The law should be read in relation with the requirement of a
judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be given res judicata effect. In
the context of the present case, no judicial order as yet exists recognizing the foreign
divorce decree. For being contrary to law, the registration of the foreign divorce decree
without the requisite judicial recognition is patently void and cannot produce any legal
effect.

The petition for review on certiorari is granted, the RTC decision is reversed and Court ordered
t6he remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings in light of the ruling.