CORPUZ

v TIROL
FACTS:

1. Gerbert Corpuz was a former Filipino citizenship who acquired Canadian
citizenship through naturalization.
2. Corpuz married Daislylyn Sto. Tomas, Filipina in Pasig City
3. Due to work commitments, Corpuz left for Canada. But when he returned in
the Philippines, he discovered that Daisylyn was having an affair with
another man.
4. Corpuz then returned to Canada to file a petition for divorce. The Superior
Court of Canada granted the petition for divorce.
5. Two years after the divorce, he found another Filipina. Wanting to marry
her, Corpuz went to the Civil Registry Office of Pasig City and registered the
divorce decree.
6. NSO informed Corpuz that his marriage with Daisylyn still subsists under
Philippine law, to be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must first be
judicially recognized by a Philippie Competent Court.
7. Thus, Corpuz filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce or
declaration of marriage as dissolved in the RTC.
o Daisylyn did not present any objection to the petition and requested
the same thing as party-in-interest.
8. RTC denied Corpuzs petition.
o Corpuz was not the proper party to institute the action for he is a
Canadian Citizen.
o Under Article 26 of the Family Code, only the Filipino spouse can
avail of the remedy
It will be unfair if the Filipino spouse remains married while the alien
already obtained a divorce decree.
9. Hence, this petition.
o The petition is a declaratory relief. He asks for a determination of his
right under Article 26. He contends that the provision applies as well
to the benefit of the alien spouse. He considers himself as a proper
party, vested with sufficient legal interest.
o The OSG and Daisylyn support Corpuzs position.


ISSUE: W/N the second paragraph of Article 26 extends to aliens the right to
petition a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce
decree.

HELD: NO. The substantive right Article 26 establishes is in favor of the
Filipina spouse.
1. Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that the policy against absolute divorces
cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated in a foreign country. The
inclusion of the second paragraph in Article 26 of the Family Code provides
the direct exception to this rule and serves as basis for recognizing the
 dissolution of the marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien
spouse.
2. Also, no court in this jurisdiction can make a declaration for the alien spouse
that he is capacitated to contract another marriage because his status and
legal capacity are generally governed by his national law.
3. However, this does not mean that an alien does not have legal interest to
petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree.
The foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity
with the aliens national law have been duly proven according to our
rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in favor
of such alien.
This is pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 that in case of a judgment or
final order against a person, the judgment or final order is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title.
o Being the subject of the foreign judgment is sufficient to
clothe a party with the requisite interest to institute an
action before our courts for the recognition of foreign
judgment. A divorce decree obtained by an alien abroad
may be recognized in the PH, provided that the divorce is
valid according to his/her national law.
The foreign judgment and its authenticity must
be proven as facts under our rules on evidence,
together with the aliens national law to show
the effect of the judgment. The recognition may
be made in an action instituted specifically for
that purpose or in another action where a party
invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect
of his claim or defense.
4. In the case at bar, Corpuz failed to submit a copy of the Canadian law on so
there is an insufficiency in the evidence. Hence, the SC remanded the case to
the RTC to determine whether the divorce decree is consistent with Canadian
divorce law.
5. SC remanded the case so that the proper parties who want to object may do
by proving want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion, fraud or clear
mistake of a law or fact. For once recognition has been made on the foreign
judgment, this shall have the effect of res judicata between the parties.
Principle of comity and the effect of res judicata will bar the Filipina
spouse to question the same (SO PROPER CAUTION MUST BE MADE)