So as not to waste time, efforts and resources, the Supreme Court (SC) has reminded litigants to file before the proper court their petition to have their foreign divorce recognized in the Philippines and to cancel or correct their civil status in the local civil registry.
The SC said: “The court’s recognition of a foreign divorce decree does not, by itself, authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil registry. The two differs as to their nature and governing rules and procedures.”
But it said the two causes of action can be filed together in a single petition before the trial court where the documents on the marriage is registered.
Otherwise, it stressed that a pleading not lodged with the proper court can be dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction.
In a decision released last April 7, the SC dismissed the petition filed by Marieta Pangilinan Johansen whose petition for recognition of her foreign divorce and plea to annotate the divorce decree on her record of marriage was denied by the regional trial court (RTC) in Malolos City in Bulacan.
Marieta, a Filipina, was married in Norway on June 12, 2015 to Knul Johansen, a Norwegian national. In 2017 they separated and Knul obtained a divorce against her.
In April 2019, Marieta filed a petition for recognition of foreign divorce with a plea to annotate the divorce decree on her report of marriage before the Malolos City RTC, the court near her place of residence in Bulacan.
She complied with all the court requirements, among them the publication of the petition in the newspapers of general circulation and the posting in public places. Hearings on the petition were conducted by the RTC.
On Jan. 14, 2021, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC ruled that Marieta’s petition should have been filed in the place where the records of her marriage with Knul may be found.
The trial court said that the report of marriage could be found in the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Office of the Civil Registrar General, and thus, the jurisdiction lies not with the RTC in Malolos City but with the RTC of either Pasig City or Quezon City.
Marieta elevated the RTC’s decision directly with the SC. She claimed venue is procedural and not jurisdictional.
She told the SC that with the dismissal of her case she has to refile her petition and go through the same process of publication and notice to the public, which is prejudicial and unjust to her.
In the decision written by the now retired Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, the SC said:
“It is undisputed that the petition filed in the RTC sought two reliefs, namely: (1) recognition of foreign decree of divorce and the corresponding (2) change or correction of entry in the civil register.
“Hence, petitioner (Marieta) must not only establish the foreign judgment as a fact in accordance with the Rules on Evidence but must also comply with the specific requirements of Rule 108. This, petitioner failed to do.
“Per the Decision of the RTC, the Report of Marriage in this case is found either in the DFA or the OCRG, that is, in Pasay City or Quezon City, respectively.
“Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 108, the petition must be filed in the RTC where the corresponding civil registry is located. However, petitioner filed the case in the RTC of Malolos City, Bulacan because it is convenient for her as she is residing in San Miguel, Bulacan. Thus, venue was improperly laid.
“More, the local civil registrar of Pasay (in case the Report of Marriage is with the DFA) was not impleaded. The RTC of Malolos City, Bulacan has no authority to order the civil registrar of Pasay or Quezon City to correct the civil status of petitioner.
“In fine, considering the foregoing defects in the petition, the RTC of Malolos City, Bulacan did not err in dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.
“Nevertheless, the dismissal is without prejudice to the refiling of the petition in the proper court, with full compliance to the specific requirements of Rule 108. Foremost, petitioner must ascertain where her Report of Marriage was recorded to know which RTC has jurisdiction over the petition.
“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated Jan. 14, 2021 and the Order dated April 5, 2021 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 84, in Special Proceedings No. 73-M-2019 are AFFIRMED without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate actions. SO ORDERED.”