REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 29, METRO MANILA

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION TO

RECOGNIZE FOREIGN DIVORCE
AND/OR CANCELLATION OF
ENTRY OF MARRIAGE

ANGELICA SANTOS
Petitioner,

-versus- SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

NO. 5982

FOR: Judicial Recognition

and Enforcement of Foreign
Judgment

DAI AKIRA, THE OFFICE OF THE

LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA,
CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OR THE
PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY,
QUEZON CITY
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------x

NOTICE OF APPEAL

COMES NOW, the petitioner, through the undersigned counsel,

unto this Honorable Court and within the reglementary period
prescribed by the Rules of Court hereby files this Notice of Appeal
from the judgment against the defendants.

Metro Manila, Philippines, October 9, 2018.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

 Department of Justice
METRO MANILA DISTRICT OFFICE
METRO MANILA
Counsel for the Petitioner

BY:

JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

Public Attorney II

The Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court
Branch 29, Metro Manila,
Philippines

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing for consideration and approval of

the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

EXPLANATION

Considering the distance between the offices of the parties and

lack of manpower to effect personal service thereof, a copy of this
Petition was served via Registered Mail.

ATTY. JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

Copy Furnished:
Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila

Office of the Solicitor General

Office of the Solicitor General Bldg.
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City1229 Philippines

National Statistician and Civil Registrar General

Philippine Statistics Authority
8/F CRS Building Building, PSA Complex
East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

Office of the Local Civil Registrar

Metro Manila
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 29, METRO MANILA

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION TO

RECOGNIZE FOREIGN DIVORCE
AND/OR CANCELLATION OF
ENTRY OF MARRIAGE

ANGELICA SANTOS
Petitioner,

-versus- SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

NO. 5982

FOR: Judicial Recognition

and Enforcement of Foreign
Judgment

THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL

CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA,
CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OR THE
PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY,
QUEZON CITY
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------x

RECORD ON APPEAL OF PETITONER

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the dates herein respectively

mentioned, the following proceedings were conducted in the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 29, Metro Manila, Philippines:

1. That on March 22, 2018, the petitioner, through counsel,

filed a petition for Judicial Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Judgment, the contents of which are the following:
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 29, METRO MANILA

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION TO

RECOGNIZE FOREIGN DIVORCE
AND/OR CANCELLATION OF
ENTRY OF MARRIAGE

ANGELICA SANTOS
Petitioner,

-versus- SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

NO. 5982

FOR: Judicial Recognition

and Enforcement of Foreign
Judgment

THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL

CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA,
CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OR THE
PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY,
QUEZON CITY
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------x

PETITION

Petitioner, Angelica Santos, by counsel and unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully states that:

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of Brgy.

Poblacion 2, Balayan, Batangas where she can be reached with orders,
notices and other processes of the Honorable Court;

2. Her husband, DAI AKIRA (hereinafter referred to as DAI),

is a Japanese citizen, of legal age, and a resident of Saganaka Ozato,
Kizugawa City, Kyoto, Japan;
 3. On July 3, 2015, petitioner and Dai Akira met at a concert
in SM MOA Arena through a common friend who set them up on a
blind date;

4. A year after they met, the two decided to get married and
had a church wedding at the Manila Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila.
As proof of such fact, attached is a copy of the Marriage Contract
issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar as Annex “A”;

5. During their marriage, they were blessed with one (1) child
named Sakura Akira. After her birth, the family decided to migrate to
Japan, mainly due to the fact that Dai Akira has his business there. As
proof of the birth of Sakura Akira, attached is a copy of the Birth
Certificate issued by the Local Civil Registrar of Manila as Annex “B”;

6. During their stay in Japan, petitioner noticed that Dai

Akira is spending less time at home and decides to sleep over at his
company;

7. Curious as to why he was always spending more time at

his work than at home, she decided to visit him. Upon arrival at his
office, she saw a woman sitting on top of Dai Akira’s lap and the two
of them were cuddling;

8. Enraged, the petitioner confronted them and learned that

they have been in a relationship from the time that they migrated to
Japan. Due to this, Dai Akira is seldom seen at home;

9. Due to the said event, petitioner initiated divorce

proceedings at the Family Court of Kizugawa City, Kyoto, Japan;

10. On August 8, 2017, the Family Court of Kizugawa City,

Kyoto, Japan issued a Certificate of All Records attesting that Dai
Akira had divorced from the petitioner. Copies of the Certificate
issued by the Consulate General of Japan in the Philippines is hereby
attached as Annex “C” and the Certificate of All Records in its English
and Japanese translations is hereby attached as Annexes “D” and “D-
1” respectively;

11.Pertinent articles of the Japanese Civil Code provide that:

Notification of Divorce
 Article 765. The notification of divorce may not
be accepted unless the divorce does not
contravene the provisions of Article 739
paragraph 2 and Article 819 paragraph 1, and
of other laws and ordinances

The validity of divorce shall not be effected

even in cases where the notification of divorce
has been accepted in contravention of the
provisions of the preceding paragraph

12. Art. 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides for

the following:

“Art.26. All marriages solemnized outside the

Philippines, in accordance with the laws in
force in the country where they were
solemnized, and valid there as such, shall all be
valid in this country, except those prohibited
under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37, and
38.

13. Consequently, Section 48 (b) of the Rule 39 of the Revised

Rules of Court on the effect of judgment of foreign tribunal in this
jurisdiction provides that:

“Sec.48. Effect of foreign judgments or final

orders – The effect of a judgment or final order
of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
jurisdiction to render the judgment or final
order is as follows:

(b) In case of judgment or final order against a

person, the judgment or final order in
presumptive evidence of a right as between the
parties and their successors in interest by a
subsequent title.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner respectfully

prays for the recognition of the Divorce Decree registered and certified
by the Mayor of Kizugawa City, Kyoto, Japan, in the marriage of Dai
Akira and the petitioner as valid and binding in the Philippines with
all the legal effects in accordance with law.

Metro Manila, Philippines, March 22, 2018.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Department of Justice
METRO MANILA DISTRICT OFFICE
METRO MANILA
Counsel for the Petitioner

BY:

JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

Public Attorney II

The Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court
Branch 29, Metro Manila,
Philippines

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing for consideration and approval of

the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

EXPLANATION

Considering the distance between the offices of the parties and

lack of manpower to effect personal service thereof, a copy of this
Petition was served via Registered Mail.
 ATTY. JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

Copy Furnished:
Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila

Office of the Solicitor General

Office of the Solicitor General Bldg.
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City1229 Philippines

National Statistician and Civil Registrar General

Philippine Statistics Authority
8/F CRS Building Building, PSA Complex
East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

Office of the Local Civil Registrar

Metro Manila
 2. That after due hearing, the court, on September 4, 2018,
rendered the following decision:

“The petition will not stand. Based on Article 15 of the

Civil Code, the Philippine law “does not afford
Filipinos to file a divorce , whether they are in the
country or living abroad, or if they celebrated their
marriage in the Philippines or in another country” and
that unless Filipinos are naturalized as citizens of
another country, Philippine laws shall have control over
issues related to Filipinos family rights and duties,
together with the determination of their condition and
legal capacity to enter into contracts and civil relations,
including marriages”

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby

DENIES the petition due to lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Metro Manila, Philippines, September 4, 2018

3. That the petitioner received a copy of the said decision on

same date. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner timely filed
a motion for reconsideration on September 19, 2018, in the following
tenor:
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 29, METRO MANILA

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION TO

RECOGNIZE FOREIGN DIVORCE
AND/OR CANCELLATION OF
ENTRY OF MARRIAGE

ANGELICA SANTOS
Petitioner,

-versus- SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

NO. 5982

FOR: Judicial Recognition

and Enforcement of Foreign
Judgment

THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL

CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA,
CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OR THE
PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY,
QUEZON CITY
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER DATED

SEPTEMBER 4, 2018

COMES NOW, the petitioner, through counsel and unto this

Honorable Court most respectfully avers that:

1. On September 4, 2018, the Honorable Court in the above

captioned case rendered the following decision:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby

DENIES the petition due to lack of merit.
 SO ORDERED.

Metro Manila, Philippines, September 4, 2018

2. The order of the Honorable Court was received by the

petitioner on the same date. Thus, she is given fifteen (15) days from
receipt thereof, or until September 19, 2018, within to file this motion;

3. The Honorable Court made a misapplication of the law

and thus move for reconsideration of the decision based on the
evidence presented, as well as the applicable law and rules obtaining
in the said case.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

that the decision rendered by the Honorable Court on September 4,
2018 be REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, obtaining under the foregoing

circumstances are also prayed for.

Metro Manila, Philippines.

September 19, 2018.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Department of Justice
METRO MANILA DISTRICT OFFICE
METRO MANILA, PHILIPPINES
Counsel for the Petitioner

BY:

JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

Public Attorney II
 NOTICE OF HEARING

The Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court
Br. 29, Metro Manila

GREETINGS:
Please submit the instant Motion for the consideration of the
Honorable Court without further oral argument.

JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

CC:
Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila

Office of the Solicitor General

Office of the Solicitor General Bldg.
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City1229 Philippines

National Statistician and Civil Registrar General

Philippine Statistics Authority
8/F CRS Building Building, PSA Complex
East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

Office of the Local Civil Registrar

Metro Manila
 4. That on September 24, 2018, the Honorable Court issued
an order denying the motion for reconsideration, to wit:

WHEREORE, premises considered, finding no

new controvertible evidence to support the reversal of
the decision of this court, the motion for reconsideration
filed by the petitioner is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

September 24, 2018.

5. That on same date, the petitioner – appellant received a

copy of the decision of the Honorable Court denying her motion for
reconsideration, and on October 9, 2018, petitioner – appellant timely
filed notice of appeal with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Metro
Manila, as follows:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 29, METRO MANILA

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION TO

RECOGNIZE FOREIGN DIVORCE
AND/OR CANCELLATION OF
ENTRY OF MARRIAGE

ANGELICA SANTOS
Petitioner,

-versus- SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

NO. 5982

FOR: Judicial Recognition

and Enforcement of Foreign
Judgment

DAI AKIRA, THE OFFICE OF THE

LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA,
CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OR THE
PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY,
QUEZON CITY
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------x

NOTICE OF APPEAL

COMES NOW, the petitioner, through the undersigned counsel,

unto this Honorable Court and within the reglementary period
prescribed by the Rules of Court hereby files this Notice of Appeal
from the judgment against the defendants.

Metro Manila, Philippines, October 9, 2018.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Department of Justice
METRO MANILA DISTRICT OFFICE
METRO MANILA
Counsel for the Petitioner

BY:

JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

Public Attorney II

The Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court
Branch 29, Metro Manila,
Philippines

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing for consideration and approval of

the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof.
 JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

EXPLANATION

Considering the distance between the offices of the parties and

lack of manpower to effect personal service thereof, a copy of this
Petition was served via Registered Mail.

ATTY. JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

Copy Furnished:
Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila

Office of the Solicitor General

Office of the Solicitor General Bldg.
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City1229 Philippines

National Statistician and Civil Registrar General

Philippine Statistics Authority
8/F CRS Building Building, PSA Complex
East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

Office of the Local Civil Registrar

Metro Manila
 WHEREFORE, the petitioner – appellant prays for the approval
of this Record on Appeal and that the same be transmitted to the
Supreme Court, together with all the oral and documentary evidence
given and presented at the trial of the above – entitled case.

Metro Manila, Philippines, October 9, 2018.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Department of Justice
METRO MANILA DISTRICT OFFICE
METRO MANILA
Counsel for the Petitioner

BY:

JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

Public Attorney II
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION TO

RECOGNIZE FOREIGN DIVORCE
AND/OR CANCELLATION OF
ENTRY OF MARRIAGE

ANGELICA SANTOS,
Petitioner,

-versus- GR No. ______

(C.A. G.R. SP No. ______)

THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL

CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA,
CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OR THE
PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY,
QUEZON CITY,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

(RULE 45)

PETITIONER, by counsel, to this Honorable Court, most

respectfully elevates for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules on Civil Procedure, the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 29, Metro Manila dated September 4, 2018 and

1 A certified true copy of the said Decision is hereto attached as Annex “A”.
2 A certified true copy of the said Resolution is hereto attached as Annex “B”.
September 24, 2018, respectively, on the ground stated in page 9
hereof.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

1. On September 4, 2018, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Metro

Manila rendered the Decision sought to be reviewed, a copy of which
was received by the petitioner, through counsel, on same date. The
petitioners timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration on September 19,
2018 but the same was denied by the Regional Trial Court in a
Resolution dated September 24, 2018, a copy of which was received by
the petitioner, through counsel, on same date. Hence, the petitioners
has fifteen (15) days, or until October 9, 2018, within which to file a
Petition for Review of Certiorari before this Honorable Court.

THE PARTIES

2. Petitioner ANGELICA SANTOS (“Angelica”) is of legal age,

Filipino and with residence at Brgy. Poblacion 2, Balayan, Batangas
where she may be served with summons and other court processes;

3. They are being represented in this proceeding by the Public

Attorney’s Office (PAO), Special and Appealed Cases Service (SACS),
with office address at 5th Floor, DOJ Agencies Building, NIA Road
corner East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, where they may be served
with notices and other processes of this Honorable Court.

4. Respondents Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila and

Civil Registrar General or the Philippine Statistics Authority are being
sued in their official capacities being the concerned agencies and the
official custodian of the Certificates of Marriage of the petitioner. The
Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila may be served with
notices, orders, and other court processes at the Manila City Hall,
Manila, Philippines, while the Civil Registrar General and the
Philippine Statistics Authority may be served with the notices, orders
and other processes of the Honorable Court at 8/F CRS Building
Building, PSA Complex East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City;
 STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED

5. This case emanated from a petition filed by petitioner Angelica

to recognize a foreign divorce decree issued by the Family Court of
Kyoto, Japan.

6. The petitioner and Dai Akira were married at the Manila

Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila a year after they met through a
common friend. Thereafter they migrated to Japan due to the existence
of Dai Akira’s business. However, during their stay in Japan, petitioner
noticed that Dai Akira seldom comes home. This prompted the
petitioner to visit him at his work and it was then and there that she
saw her husband cuddling with another woman. It was later on
discovered that the two had extramarital affairs upon their arrival at
Japan.

7. Among the pieces of evidence attached to the petition includes

the following:

a. Trial court’s order dated April 3,2015 ordering the

publication of the petition;

b. Affidavit of Publication;

c. Issues of the Philippine Star dated April 15, 22, 29, 2018

d. Copy of the Divorce Decree issued by the Family Court of

Kyoto, Japan, dated August 8, 2017;

e. Marriage Contract issued by the Office of the Civil

Registrar General;

f. Birth Certificate issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar

General, under the name of Sakura Akira

g. Certificate of All Records in its English and Japanese

translations
 8. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its
appearance for the Republic of the Philippines authorizing the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Manila to appear on its behalf;

9. Thus, by filing the said petition, the petitioner prays that

the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Manila, issue an order directing
the concerned agencies to cancel the entry of marriage between the
petitioner and Dai, pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which
marriage has been dissolved by virtue of the divorce decree;

10. On September 4, 2018 , the trial court denied the petition

for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby

DENIES the petition due to lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Metro Manila, Philippines, September 4, 2018

11. In ruling that the divorce of Santos in Japan should not be

recognized, it opined that based on Article 15 of the Civil Code, the
Philippine law “does not afford Filipinos to file a divorce , whether
they are in the country or living abroad, or if they celebrated their
marriage in the Philippines or in another country” and that unless
Filipinos are naturalized as citizens of another country, Philippine
laws shall have control over issues related to Filipinos family rights
and duties, together with the determination of their condition and
legal capacity to enter into contracts and civil relations, including
marriages”;

12. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the petitioner

filed a timely motion for reconsideration on September 19, 2018.
However, the trial court denied the said motion in a resolution dated
September 24, 2018, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREORE, premises considered, finding

no new controvertible evidence to support the
reversal of the decision of this court, the motion for
reconsideration filed by the petitioner is hereby
DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
 September 24, 2018.

Hence this petition.

GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE

PETITION
13. With due respect, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29,
Metro Manila committed a reversible error in denying the petition for
judicial recognition of divorce decree filed by the petitioner, which, if
not corrected, will cause injustice and irreparable damage to the
petitioners.

14. Admittedly, “in a petition for review on certiorari, the

scope of the Supreme Court’s judicial review of decisions of the
Regional Trial Court is generally confined only to errors of law;
questions of fact are not entertained. Thus, only questions of law may
be brought by the parties and passed upon by this Honorable Court in
the exercise of its power to review.”3

15. In the case at bar, the findings of the Regional Trial Court
pertains to the application of pertinent laws in the grant of a foreign
divorce decree which has the effect of cancellation of the certificate of
marriage between the petitioner and Dai Akira.

SOLE ISSUE PRESENTED FOR RESOLUTION

WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL

COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
PETITION TO JUDICIALLY RECOGNIZE
THE FOREIGN DIVORCE DECREE
OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER.

3 Alfaro v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 140812, August 28, 2001.
 DISCUSSION

With deference, the foregoing issues will be addressed seriatim.

The trial court erred in denying the

petition for judicial recognition of a
foreign divorce decree.

16. Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the

Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country
where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also
be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles
35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38. (17a)

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a

foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

17. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 confers jurisdiction on Philippine

courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino
spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the
dissolution of the marriage. It authorizes our courts to adopt the effects
of a foreign divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not
allow divorce. Philippine courts cannot try the case on the merits
because it is tantamount to trying a divorce case. Under the principles
of comity, our jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by the
spouse of foreign nationality, but the legal effects thereof, e.g., on
custody, care and support of the children or property relations of the
spouses, must still be determined by our courts.4

The facts in Manalo are similar to the circumstances in this case.

A divorce decree between a Filipino and a Japanese national was
obtained by the spouses upon a case that was filed in Japan by Manalo,
the Filipino spouse. Initially, the recognition of the divorce decree in
the Philippines was rejected by the RTC where the petition for

4
Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018.
recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment was filed, as the
trial court cited Article 15 of the New Civil Code and reasoned that as
a rule, "the Philippine law 'does not afford Filipinos the right to file for
a divorce, whether they are in the country or living abroad, if they are
married to Filipinos or to foreigners, or if they celebrated their
marriage in the Philippines or in another country."' On appeal to the
Court of Appeals (CA), however, the RTC decision was overturned.
The appellate court held that Article 26 of the Family Code should
apply even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce. The decree made
the Japanese spouse no longer married to Manalo; he then had the
capacity to remarry. It would be unjust to still deem Manalo married
to the Japanese who, in turn, was no longer married to her. The fact
that it was Manalo who filed the divorce was inconsequential. This
ruling of the CA was then affirmed by the Court in Manalo upon a
petition for review on certiorari that was filed by the Republic of the
Philippines.5

18. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of "a divorce x x x validly

obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry." Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only
requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter of
the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who
initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It
does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or
the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding. The Court is bound
by the words of the statute; neither can we put words in the mouth of
lawmakers. The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the
words to have used words advisely and to have expressed its intent by
the use of such words as are found in the statute. Verba legis non est
recedendum, or from the words if a statute there should be departure."6

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that this petition be given DUE
COURSE, and after due consideration, the Decision and Resolution of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Metro Manila, dated September 4,
2018, respectively, be REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

5
Supra note 1.
6
Supra note 2.
 Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Quezon City for Manila,

October 9, 2018.

Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Special and Appealed Cases Service
DOJ Agencies Bldg., NIA Road
corner East Avenue
Diliman 1104, Quezon City
Tel Nos. 89289137/89299436 loc. 111
Email: [email protected]

By:

JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

Public Attorney II
Roll No. _____
IBP Lifetime Member No. _____; 01-05-18
MCLE Compliance No. VI-_____; 02-01-18
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-
FORUM SHOPPING

I, ANGELICA SANTOS, of legal age, Filipino, and with with

residence at Brgy. Poblacion 2, Balayan, Batangas, do hereby state
under oath the following:

1. I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition

for Review on Certiorari.

3. I have read and understood the same and all allegations

therein are true, correct and of my own personal knowledge and
based on authentic documents;

4. This petition is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary

delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and

5. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support

or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

6. I hereby certify that: (a) we have not commenced any

other action or proceeding involving the same issues thereto
with the this Honorable Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency; (b) to the best of our knowledge, no
such action or proceeding involving the same issues is pending
before this Honorable Court, the Court of Appeals or any other
tribunal or agency; (c) if there is an action or proceeding
involving the same issues which is pending before this
Honorable Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency, we will state the status thereof; and (d) should we learn
hereafter that a similar action or proceeding involving the same
issues is filed or pending before this Honorable Court, the Court
of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, we will report the
fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to this Honorable
Court, and to the court where the original pleading has been
filed.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set our hand and
affixed our signature this 9th day of October 2018 at the Special and
Appealed Cases Service, Public Attorney’s Office, Diliman, Quezon
City.

ANGELICA SANTOS
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 9th day of October

2018 at the Special and Appealed Cases, Public Attorney’s Office,
Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines by the above-named affiant and
personally identified by me through her identification cards, bearing
her respective signature and photograph attached thereon.

JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

Public Attorney II
Pursuant to R.A. No. 9406

EXPLANATION

The foregoing pleading is being served by registered mail since

personal service is impracticable due to the limited number of
messengers in the undersigned’s office.

JONATHAN PAOLO R. DIMAANO

Copy furnished:

Copy Furnished:
Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila

Office of the Solicitor General

Office of the Solicitor General Bldg.
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City1229 Philippines

National Statistician and Civil Registrar General

Philippine Statistics Authority
8/F CRS Building Building, PSA Complex
East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

Office of the Local Civil Registrar

Metro Manila