G.R. No.

188289 August 20, 2014

FACTS:
 David and Leticia, both Filipinos, were married on 3 December 1988 in QC. They resided in
California, USA where they eventually acquired American citizenship. They then begot two
children, Jerome and Jena. Accordingly, they have properties in PH and USA.
 On Dec 2002, their Sampaloc property (their house in Sampaloc, Manila used to be owned by
David’s parents) were sold for 2.2 Million, 120k were incurred in going to and from the USA (Net
= 2.08M). 410k of this is still unpaid.
 David left USA due to business reverses (2001) but later on abandoned his family to live with his
mistress in Aurora province (Sep 2003).
 On Dec 2003, David and Leticia executed a joint affidavit before David’s father, Atty Isaias. 1
 Upon learning that David had an extra-marital affair, Leticia filed a petition for divorce with the
Superior Court of California, which granted the same on 24 June 2005. The California court
granted to Leticia the custody of her two children, as well as all the couple’s properties in the
USA.
 Aug 2005 - Leticia filed a petition for Judicial Separation of Conjugal Property before the RTC of
Baler, Aurora. She relied on the Dec 2003 Joint Affidavit and David’s failure to comply with his
obligation under the same. David, on the other hand, demanded that the conjugal partnership
properties, which also include the USA properties, be liquidated since a divorce decree was
already entered.
 The RTC regarded that since the parties are US citizens, their marriage is hereby declared
DISSOLVED pursuant to the divorce decree. Thus, the trial court considered the petition filed by
Leticia as one for liquidation of the absolute community of property instead of an action for
judicial separation of conjugal property. Their property was classified as absolute community
because they did not execute any marriage settlement before the solemnization of their
marriage pursuant to Article 75 of the Family Code. Then, the trial court ruled that in accordance
with the doctrine of processual presumption, Philippine law should apply because the court
cannot take judicial notice of the US law since the parties did not submit any proof of their
national law. The court adjudicated the Philippine properties to David subject to the payment
of the children’s legitimes.
 On appeal, the CA modified the RTC decision and directed the equal division of the Philippine
properties between the spouses and both should pay their children the amount of P520,000.00
(from the sale of Sampaloc property – 2.08M /2 (half of the sale belongs to the children) /2
children.)
 Hence this petition, where David insists that CA should have recognized the California Judgment
of divorce and that allowing Leticia to share in the Philippine properties is tantamount to unjust
enrichment considering that she was already granted all US properties by the California court.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the marriage between David and Leticia has been dissolved pursuant to the divorce
decree issued in California;

2. Whether or not the filing of the judicial separation of property is proper in accordance with the Family
Code
RULING:
1. No.

The trial court erred in recognizing the divorce decree which severed the bond of marriage between the
parties. Foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence,
together with the alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself
or herself.2

Based on the records, only the divorce decree was presented in evidence. The required certificates to
prove its authenticity, as well as the pertinent California law on divorce were not presented. Even if we
apply the doctrine of processual presumption, divorce is not recognized between Filipino citizens in the
Philippines. Absent a valid recognition of the divorce decree, it follows that the parties are still legally
married in the Philippines.

The trial court thus erred in proceeding directly to liquidation.

2. Yes.

Art 135 of the Family Code provides that “Any of the following shall be considered sufficient cause for
judicial separation of property:
(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been separated in fact for at least
one year and reconciliation is highly improbable.”

The records of this case are complete with evidence that both parties had indeed separated for
more than a year and that reconciliation is highly improbable.
a. The spouses had been living separately since 2003.
b. Leticia heard from her friends that David has been cohabiting with Estrellita Martinez,
who represented herself as Estrellita Noveras. Editha Apolonio, who worked in the
hospital where David was once confined, testified that she saw the name of Estrellita
listed as the wife of David in the Consent for Operation form.
c. they had filed for divorce and it was granted by the California court in June 2005.
Having established that Leticia and David had actually separated for at least one year, the petition for
judicial separation of absolute community of property should be granted. The grant of the judicial
separation automatically dissolves the absolute community regime, as stated in the 4th paragraph of
Article 99 of the Family Code, thus: “Art. 99. The absolute community terminates: xxx (4) In case of
judicial separation of property during the marriage under Articles 134 to 138.” Accordingly, the
procedure provided in Art 102 shall apply. 3

Thus, decision of the CA is affirmed. This court agrees with the appellate court that the Philippine courts
did not acquire jurisdiction over the California properties of David and Leticia. Indeed, Article 16 of the
Civil Code clearly states that real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
country where it is situated. Thus, liquidation shall only be limited to the Philippine properties.

The principle in Article 26 of the Family Code applies in a marriage between a Filipino and a foreign
citizen who obtains a foreign judgment nullifying the marriage.
------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. 3 Dec 2003 joint affidavit states that:
1. the P1.1 Million proceeds from the sale of the Sampaloc property shall be paid to and collected
by Leticia
2. that David shall return and pay to Leticia P750,000.00, which is equivalent to half of the amount
of the redemption price of the Sampaloc property
3. that David shall renounce and forfeit all his rights and interest in the conjugal and real properties
situated in the Philippines

2. A copy of the foreign judgment may be admitted in evidence and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24
and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.

Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved
by: (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof. Such
official publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that
the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine
embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the
seal of his office. The attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a
specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.

Section 25 of the same Rule states that whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any,
or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.

3. Art. 102. Upon dissolution of the absolute community regime, the following procedure shall apply:

(1) An inventory shall be prepared, listing separately all the properties of the absolute community and the
exclusive properties of each spouse.

(2) The debts and obligations of the absolute community shall be paid out of its assets. In case of insufficiency of
said assets, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties in
accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 94.

(3) Whatever remains of the exclusive properties of the spouses shall thereafter be delivered to each of them.

(4) The net remainder of the properties of the absolute community shall constitute its net assets, which shall be
divided equally between husband and wife, unless a different proportion or division was agreed upon in the
marriage settlements, or unless there has been a voluntary waiver of such share provided in this Code. For
purposes of computing the net profits subject to forfeiture in accordance with Articles 43, No. (2) and 63, No. (2),
the said profits shall be the increase in value between the market value of the community property at the time of
the celebration of the marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution.
(5) The presumptive legitimes of the common children shall be delivered upon partition, in accordance with Article
51.

(6) Unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, in the partition of the properties, the conjugal dwelling and the
lot on which it is situated shall be adjudicated to the spouse with whom the majority of the common children
choose to remain. Children below the age of seven years are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless the court
has decided otherwise. In case there is no such majority, the court shall decide, taking into consideration the best
interests of said children.