Noveras Vs Noveras Digest

DAVID A. NOVERAS, Petitioner, vs. LETICIA T. NOVERAS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 188289 August 20, 2014
Before the Court is a petition for review assailing the Decision of the Court of which affirmed in part the 8 December
2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler, Aurora.
Facts:
1. David and Leticia are US citizens who own properties in the USA and in the Philippines.
2. Due to business reverses, David left the USA and returned to the Philippines.
3. According to Leticia, sometime in September 2003, David abandoned his family and lived with Estrellita
Martinez in Aurora province.
4. Leticia claimed that David agreed to and executed a Joint Affidavit with Leticia in the presence of David’s
father, Atty. Isaias Noveras stated that David shall renounce and forfeit all his rights and interest in the
conjugal and real properties situated in the Philippines.
5. Upon learning that David had an extra-marital affair, Leticia filed a petition for divorce with the Superior
Court of California which granted the divorce, the custody of her two children, as well as all the couple’s
properties in the USA.
6. On 8 August 2005, Leticia filed a petition for Judicial Separation of Conjugal Property before the RTC of Baler,
Aurora relying on the Joint Affidavit and David’s failure to comply with his obligation under the same.
7. The trial court considered the petition filed by Leticia as one for liquidation of the absolute community of
property regime with the determination of the legitimes, support and custody of the children, instead of an
action for judicial separation of conjugal property.
8. With respect to their property relations, the trial court first classified their property regime as absolute
community of property 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. Thus, the Court also
adjudicated the Philippine properties to David, subject to the payment of the children’s presumptive
legitimes.
9. Upon Leticia’s appeal to the CA, the CA ruled that the Philippine properties be divided equally between the
spouses and that both should pay their children P520k.
10. David argues that the Court should have recognized the California judgment that awarded him the Philippine
properties and that allowing Leticia to share in the PH properties is tantamount to unjust enrichment
considering she already owns all the US properties.
Issue:
WON trial court erred in acknowledging the divorce decree.
Ruling:
Yes. The trial court erred in acknowledging the divorce decree.
The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not
take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, "no sovereign is bound to
give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country." This means that the 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. The recognition may be
made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign
decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.
The requirements of presenting the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the foreigner must comply with
our Rules of Evidence. Specifically, for Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a
marriage, 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.
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.
It may be noted that in Bayot v. Court of Appeals, we relaxed the requirement on certification where we held that
"[petitioner therein] was clearly an American citizen when she secured the divorce and that divorce is recognized
and allowed in any of the States of the Union, the presentation of a copy of foreign divorce decree duly
authenticated by the foreign court issuing said decree is, as here, sufficient." In this case however, it appears that
there is no seal from the office where the divorce decree was obtained.
Even if we apply the doctrine of processual presumption as the lower courts did with respect to the property regime
of the parties, the recognition of divorce is entirely a different matter because, to begin with, 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.
As a general rule, any modification in the marriage settlements must be made before the celebration of marriage. An
exception to this rule is allowed provided that the modification is judicially approved and refers only to the instances
provided in Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136 of the Family Code.

Noveras Vs Noveras Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Noveras Vs Noveras Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Noveras Vs Noveras Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAVID A. NOVERAS, Petitioner, vs. LETICIA T. NOVERAS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 188289 August 20, 2014

You might also like