Gerbert R. Corpuz v. Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas and the Solicitor General G.R. No.

186571, 11 August 2010, THIRD DIVISION, (Brion, J.) FACTS: Petitioner Gerbert R. Corpuz is a naturalized Canadian citizen who married respondentDaisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas but subsequently left for Canada due towork and other professional commitments. When he returned to the Philippines,he discovered that Sto. Tomas was already romantically involved with anotherman. This brought about the filing of a petition for divorce by Corpuz in Canadawhich was eventually granted by the Court Justice of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.A month later, the divorce decree took effect. Two years later, Corpuz has fallenin love with another Filipina and wished to marry her. He went to Civil RegistryOffice of Pasig City to register the Canadian divorce decree on his marriagecertificate with Sto. Tomas. However, despite the registration, an official of National Statistics Office informed Corpuz that the former marriage still subsistsunder the Philippine law until there has been a judicial recognition of theCanadian divorce decree by a competent judicial court in view of NSO CircularNo. 4, series of 1982. Consequently, he filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of dissolution of marriage with the RTC.However, the RTC denied the petition reasoning out that Corpuz cannot institutethe action for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree because he is anaturalized Canadian citizen. It was provided further that Sto. Tomas was theproper party who can institute an action under the principle of Article 26 of theFamily Code which capacitates a Filipino citizen to remarry in case the alienspouse obtains a foreign divorce decree. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Codegrants aliens like Corpuz the right to institute a petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree? HELD: Petition GRANTED. RTC Decision REVERSED. The Supreme Court qualifies the above conclusion - i.e., that the secondparagraph of Article 26 of the Family Code bestows no rights in favor of aliens -with the complementary statement that this conclusion is not sufficient basis todismiss Gerbert's petition before the RTC. In other words, the unavailability ofthe second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does notnecessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognitionof his foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after itsauthenticity and conformity with the alien's national law have been duly provenaccording to our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right infavor of Gerbert, pursuant to

Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court whichprovides for the effect of foreign judgments.A remand, at the same time, will allow other interested parties to opposethe foreign judgment and overcome a petitioner's presumptive evidence of aright by proving want of jurisdiction, want of notice to a party, collusion, fraud,or clear mistake of law or fact. Needless to state, every precaution must betaken to ensure conformity with our laws before a recognition is made, as theforeign judgment, once recognized, shall have the effect of res judicata betweenthe parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.