IWASAWA VS GANGAN | September 11, 2013 | Villarama, J.

P: Yasuo Iwasawa
R: Felisa Custodio Gangan (AKA Felisa Gangan Iwasawa/Felisa Gangan
Arambulo), Local Civil Registrar of Pasay
TOPIC: Bigamous and Polygamous marriages
FACTS:
- 2002: Japanese national Yasuo Iwasawa met Filipina Felisa Gangan during his
visit to the Philippines. Gangan said she was single and had never been married.
- November 2002: Iwasawa and Gangan married in Pasay. Resided in Japan
after.
- July 2009: Iwasawa noticed that Gangan became depressed
o Gangan confessed that the reason for her depression was because she
was informed that HER PREVIOUS HUSBAND HAD DIED
o Turns out, Gangan was previously married to Raymond Maglonzo
Arambulo (Married June 20, 1994)
- Iwasawa filed a petition to declare their marriage null and void on the ground of
bigamy. He testified and presented the following evidence issued by the NSO:
1. Certificate of his marriage with Gangan
2. Certificate of marriage between Gangan and Arambulo
3. Certificate of death of Arambulo
4. Certification from NSO that there are 2 entries of marriage recorded
by the office for Gangan
- September 4, 2012: RTC denied the petition due to INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
that prove Gangans prior existing marriage. RTC ruled that:
o Iwasawas testimony is unreliable because he had no knowledge of
Gangans 1
st
marriage prior to Arambulos death
o Iwasawa did not present NSO records custodian to certify the authenticity
of the documents
ISSUE:
1. W/N the testimony of NSO records custodian certifying authenticity and
execution of public documents was necessary before they could be accorded
weight NO.
RATIO/HELD:
1. NO, all the documentary evidence Iwasawa presented were PUBLIC
RECORDS, which are admissible in evidence even without further proof of
authenticity (RA 3753: Law on Registry of Civil Status, Art 410 NCC). The
documents are considered prima facie evidence, enough to es tablish the fact that
there was a prior marriage. Even the trial prosecutor admitted the authenticity of
the documents.
2. Gangan admitted to having a prior marriage and she is not against having
the marriage be declared null and void. She confessed she lied to Iwasawa
because of poverty and joblessness. The two separated after the she confessed
when the 1
st
husband died.
3. Judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid, subsequent
marriage can be contracted, or else, the second marriage is void from the

beginning [Art 35(4) FC]

PETITION GRANTED. Iwasawa and Gangan marriage declared NULL & VOID

Gerbert R. Corpuz
v.
Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas and the Solicitor GeneralG.R. No. 186571, 11 August 2010, THIRD DIVISION,
(Brion,
J.
)
T he unava ila bil it y of t he secon d par agr aph of Art ic le 26 of t he
F a m i l y Code to aliens does not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition theRTC
for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decreeitself, after its
authenticity and conformity with the alien's national law havebeen duly proven
according to our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive e v i d e n c e o f r i g h t i n
f a v o r o f G e r b e r t , p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 4 8 , R u l e 3 9 o f t h e Rules of Court which
provides for the effect of foreign judgments.
This is a petition for review on
certiorari
seeking a direct appeal from thedecision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City.Petitioner
Gerbert R. Corpuz is a naturalized Canadian citizen who marriedrespondent Daisylyn Tirol
Sto. Tomas but subsequently left for Canada due to work and other professional
commitments. When he returned to the Philippines,he discovered that Sto. Tomas was
already romantically involved with another man. 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
RegistryO f f i c e o f P a s i g C i t y t o r e g i s t e r t h e C a n a d i a n d i v o r c e d e c r e e o n h i s
m a r r i a g e c e r t i f i c a t e w i t h S t o . Tom a s . H o w e v e r , d e s p i t e t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n , a n
o f f i c i a l o f National Statistics Office informed Corpuz that the former marriage still
subsistsu n d e r t h e P h i l i p p i n e l a w u n t i l t h e r e h a s b e e n a j u d i c i a l
r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e Canadian 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 f o r e i g n d i v o r c e a n d / o r d e c l a r a t i o n o f d i s s o l u t i o n o f m a r r i a g e
w i t h t h e R T C . 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 alien spouse obtains a
foreign divorce decree. Hence, this petition.ISSUE:W h e t h e r o r n o t t h e s e c o n d
p a r a g r a p h o f A r t i c l e 2 6 o f t h e F a m i l y C o d e grants 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 second paragraph
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 of
the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens
d o e s n o t necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognitiono f

his foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after
i t s authenticity 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 which provides 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, o r c l e a r m i s t a k e o f
l a w o r f a c t . N e e d l e s s t o s t a t e , e v e r y p r e c a u t i o n m u s t b e taken to ensure
conformity with our laws before a recognition is made, as the foreign judgment, once
recognized, shall have the effect of
res judicata
betweenthe parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.