Corpuz vs. Sto Tomas - Perfam - Teodosio, HG

GERBERT R. CORPUZ, Petitioner, -versus-DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS and THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondent.
G.R. No. 186571
As the RTC correctly stated, the provision was included to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains
married to the alien spouse, who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. The legislative intent is
for the benefit of the Filipino spouse by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree.
Given the rationale and intent behind the enactment, only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code; the alien spouse can claim no right under this provision.
FACTS:
Petitioner Gerbert Corpuz (Gerbert) was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization on
November 29, 2000. On January 18, 2005, Gerbert married respondent Daisylyn Sto. Tomas, a Filipina,in Pasig City. Due to
work and other professional commitments, Gerbert left for Canada soon after the wedding. He returned to thePhilippines
sometime in April 2005 to surprise Daisylyn, but was shocked to discover that his wife was having an affair with another man.
Gerbert returned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce which was granted by the Canadian Supreme Court on December 8,
2005 and took effect a month later. Two years after the divorce, Gerbert has found another Filipina to marry. Gerbert went to
the Pasig City Civil Registry Office and registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and Daisylyn's marriage certificate.
Despite the registration of the divorce decree, an official of the National Statistics Office (NSO) informed Gerbert that the
marriage between him and Daisylyn still subsists under Philippine law and to be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must
first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court. Accordingly, Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition
offoreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as dissolved with the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City (RTC). However, the
RTC denied Gerbert’s petition concluding that Gerbert was not the proper party to institute the action for judicial recognition of
the foreign divorce decree as he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy,
under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for
the recognition of a foreign divorce decree (NO)
RULING:
No.
The Supreme Court said that the 2nd par of Art 26 is not available to the foreigner because it is only available exclusively to the
Filipino spouse (in favor of the Filipino spouse).
As the RTC correctly stated, the provision was included to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains
married to the alien spouse, who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. The legislative intent is
for the benefit of the Filipino spouse by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree.
Given the rationale and intent behind the enactment, the RTC was correct in limiting the applicability of the provision for the
benefit of the Filipino spouse. In other words, only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the
Family Code; the alien spouse can claim no right under this provision.
But while Corpuz cannot avail of the 2nd par of Art 26, it does not follow that he has no right to have the divorce decree
recognized. The proper remedy is under Rule 39 Sec 48 of the Rules of Court which provides the rule for the effect of foreign
judgment. The proper remedy Corpuz should pursue is under Rule 108 – a correction of entry in the local civil registrar.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition for review on certiorari, and REVERSE the October 30, 2008 decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 11, as well as its February 17, 2009 order. We order the REMAND of the case to the trial
court for further proceedings in accordance with our ruling above. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Civil Registrar
General. No costs.

Corpuz vs. Sto Tomas - Perfam - Teodosio, HG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corpuz vs. Sto Tomas - Perfam - Teodosio, HG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corpuz vs. Sto Tomas - Perfam - Teodosio, HG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GERBERT R. CORPUZ, Petitioner, -versus-DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS and THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondent.

G.R. No. 186571

You might also like