Upload
christoffer-allan-liquigan
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Corpuz+v.+Tirol Mangahas
1/2
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 marriedrespondentDaisylyn 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 ajudicial 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 todismissGerbert'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
7/31/2019 Corpuz+v.+Tirol Mangahas
2/2
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 theforeignjudgment, once recognized, shall have the effect of res judicata betweenthe parties,
as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.