Ando v DFA

Edelina Ando v. DFA Aug. 27, 2014 | Sereno | 1 st FACTS: Edelina Ando married Japanese National Yuichiro Kobayashi. In Japan, Yuichiro Kobayashi was validly granted a divorce. Believing in good faith that the divorce capacitated her to remarry, Edelina married Masatomi Ando. Edelina applied for the renewal of her Philippine passport to indicate her surname as Ando but was told at the DFA that the same cannot be issued to her until she can prove by competent court decision that her marriage with her said husband Masatomi is valid until otherwise declared. Edelina filed with the RTC a petition for declaratory relief, impleading the DFA as respondent and praying the court to declare her marriage with Masatomi as valid and to direct the DFA to issue a passport under the name Edelina Ando y Tungol. RTC issued an order dismissing the petition for want of cause and action as well as jurisdiction. The RTC said there is no showing that Edelina complied with the requirements set forth in Art. 13 of the Family Code, that is obtaining a judicial recognition of the foreign decree of absolute divorce. After Edelina filed an ex parte motion for reconsideration of the order was endorsed to a family court, which dismissed the petition anew on the ground that petitioner had no cause of action. An ex parte motion for reconsideration was also denied.


Ando v DFA digest

Transcript of Ando v DFA

Edelina Ando v. DFAAug. 27, 2014 | Sereno | 1stFACTS:Edelina Andomarrieda!anese "ational #ui$%iro&o'a(as%i. )na!an,#ui$%iro &o'a(as%i *as validl( granted a divor$e. +elieving in good ,ait%t%at t%e divor$e $a!a$itated %er to remarr(, Edelina married -asatomi Ando.Edelinaa!!lied,ort%erene*al o,%er.%ili!!ine!ass!orttoindi$ate%ersurname as Ando 'ut *as told at t%e DFA t%at t%e same $annot 'e issued to%er until s%e $an !rove '( $om!etent $ourt de$ision t%at %er marriage *it%%er said %us'and -asatomi is valid until ot%er*ise de$lared.Edelina ,iled *it% t%e /TC a !etition ,or de$larator( relie,, im!leading t%eDFAas res!ondent and!ra(ingt%e $ourt tode$lare%er marriage *it%-asatomi as valid and to dire$t t%e DFA to issue a !ass!ort under t%e nameEdelina Ando(Tungol. /TCissuedanorderdismissingt%e!etition,or*ant o, $ause and a$tion as *ell as 0urisdi$tion. T%e /TC said t%ere is nos%o*ing t%at Edelina $om!lied *it% t%e re1uirements set ,ort% in Art. 12 o,t%eFamil(Code, t%at is o'taininga0udi$ial re$ognitiono, t%e,oreignde$ree o, a'solute divor$e. A,ter Edelina ,iledane3!arte motion,orre$onsideration o, t%e order *as endorsed to a ,amil( $ourt, *%i$% dismissedt%e !etition ane* on t%e ground t%at !etitioner %ad no $ause o, a$tion. An e3!arte motion ,or re$onsideration *as also denied.Edelina ,iled t%is !etition ,or revie* under /ule 44.)SS5E: 67" t%e /TC erred in ruling t%at s%e %ad no $ause o, a$tion..ET)T)7"E/: 5nder A.-. "o. 028118108SC, it issolel(t%e*i,eort%e%us'and *%o $an ,ile a !etition ,or t%e de$laration o, t%e a'solute nullit( o,a void marriage. T%us, t%e state $annot $ollaterall( atta$9 t%e validit( o, amarriage in a !etition ,or de$larator( relie,. Furt%er, Edelina alleged t%at amarriage s%all 'e deemed valid until de$lared ot%er*ise in a 0udi$ial!ro$eeding. S%e also argued t%at assuming a $ourt 0udgment re$ogni:ing a0udi$ial de$ree o, divor$e is re1uired under Arti$le 12 o, t%e Famil( Code,non$om!lian$e t%ere*it% is a mere irregularit( in t%e issuan$e o, a marriageli$ense. /ES.7"DE"T: .rior 0udi$ial re$ognition '( a .%ili!!ine $ourt o, a divor$ede$ree o'tained '( t%e alien s!ouse is re1uired 'e,ore a Fili!ino s!ouse $anremarr( and 'e entitled to t%e legal e,,e$ts o, remarriage. SC: .etition is *it%out merit.1. Edelina in$orre$tl( ,iled a !etition ,or de$larator( relie, *it% res!e$t to%er !ra(er to $om!el t%e DFA to issue %er !ass!ort. S%e s%ould %ave ,irsta!!ealed 'e,ore t%e Se$retar( o, Foreign A,,airs, a$$ording to t%e .%ili!!ine.ass!ort A$t.2. Edelinas%ould%ave,ileda!etition,ort%e0udi$ial re$ognitiono,%er,oreigndivor$e,rom%er,irst %us'and*it%res!e$t to%er!ra(er,ort%ere$ognition o, %er se$ond marriage as valid.)n ;ar$ia v. /e$io, t%e SC ruled t%at a divor$e o'tained a'road '( an alienma( 'e re$ogni:ed in our 0urisdi$tion, !rovided t%e de$ree is valid a$$ordingto t%e national la* o, t%e ,oreigner. T%e !resentation solel( o, t%e divor$ede$reeisinsu,,i$ient