Ando v. DFA

14
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 195432 August 27, 2014 EDELINA T. ANDO, Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Respondent. D E C I S I O N SERENO, CJ: This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the nullification of the Orders dated 14 January and 8 February 2011 issued by the Regional Trial Court (R TC), Third Judicial Region, Branch 45, 1 City of San Fernando, Pampanga, in Civil Case No. 137, which dismissed the Petition for Declaratory Relief filed therein. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CASE The pertinent facts of the case, as alleged by petitioner, are as follows: 3. On 16 September 2001, petitioner married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese National, in a civil wedding solemnized at Candaba, Pampanga. A copy of their Certificate of Marriage is hereto attached as Annex 'A' and made an integral part hereof.

description

case

Transcript of Ando v. DFA

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 195432 August 27, 2014EDELINA T. ANDO, Petitioner, vs.DEPARTMENT O OREIGN AAIRS, Respondent.D! I S I O NSERENO, CJ:This is a Petition for Revie" under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt, see%in& the nullification of the Orders dated '# (anuar) and * Februar) +,'' issued b) the Re&ional Trial !ourt -R T!., Third (udicial Re&ion, /ranch #$,' !it) of San Fernando, Pa0pan&a, in !ivil !ase No. '12, "hich dis0issed the Petition for Declarator) Relief filed therein.ST3TMNT OF T4 F3!TS 3ND OF T4 !3SThe pertinent facts of the case, as alle&ed b) petitioner, are as follo"s51. On '6 Septe0ber +,,', petitioner 0arried 7uichiro 8oba)ashi, a (apanese National, in a civil "eddin& sole0ni9ed at !andaba, Pa0pan&a. 3 cop) of their !ertificate of Marria&e is hereto attached as 3nne: ;3; and 0ade an inte&ral part hereof.#. On '6 Septe0ber +,,#, 7uichiro 8oba)ashi sou&ht in (apan, and "as validl) &ranted under (apanesela"s, a divorce in respect of his 0arria&e "ithpetitioner. 3 cop) of the Divorce !ertificate dul) issued b) the !onsulate/? and 0ade an inte&ral part hereof. $. Said Divorce !ertificate "as dul) re&istered "ith the Office of the !ivil Re&istr) of Manila. 3 cop) of the !ertification dated +* October +,,$ is hereto attached as 3nne: >!? and 0ade an inte&ral part hereof.6. /elievin& in &ood faith that said divorce capacitated her to re0arr) and that b) such she reverted to her sin&le status, petitioner 0arried Masato0i 7.3ndo on '1 Septe0ber +,,$ in a civil "eddin& celebrated in Sta. 3na, Pa0pan&a. 3 cop) of their !ertificate of Marria&e is hereto attached as 3nne: >D? and 0ade an inte&ral part hereof.2. In the 0eanti0e, 7uichiro 8oba)ashi 0arried R)o Mi%en on +2 Dece0ber +,,$. 3 cop) of the (apaneseFa0il) Re&istr) Record of 8oba)ashi sho"in& the divorce he obtained and his re0arria&e "ith R)o Mi%en, dul) authenticated b) the !onsulate? and 0ade an inte&ral part hereof.*. Recentl), petitioner applied for the rene"al of her Philippine passport to indicate her surna0e "ithher husband Masato0i 7. 3ndo but she "as told atthe Depart0ent of Forei&n 3ffairs that the sa0e cannot be issued to her untilshe can prove b)co0petent court decision that her 0arria&e "ith her said husband Masato0i 7. 3ndo is valid until other"ise declared.: : : :'+. Prescindin& fro0 the fore&oin&, petitioner?s 0arria&e "ith her said husband Masato0i 7. 3ndo 0usttherefore be honored, considered and declared valid, until other"ise declared b) a co0petent court. !onse@uentl), and until then, petitioner therefore is and 0ust be declared entitled to the issuance of a Philippine passport under the na0e >delina 3ndo ) Tun&ol.? 4ence, this petitioner pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of !ourt.+On +A October +,',, petitioner filed "ith the RT! a Petition for Declarator) Relief, "hich "as later raffled off to /ranch #6. She i0pleaded the Depart0ent of Forei&n 3ffairs -DF3. as respondent and pra)ed for the follo"in& reliefs before thelo"er court5B4RFOR, petitioner 0ost respectfull) pra)s of this 4onorable !ourt that after proper proceedin&s, Cud&0ent be rendered, as follo"s5-a. declarin& as valid and subsistin& the 0arria&e bet"een petitioner delina T. 3ndo and her husband Masato0i 7. 3ndo until other"ise declared b) a co0petent courtD-b. declarin& petitioner entitled to the issuance of a Philippine Passport under the na0e Edelina 3ndo ) Tun&olED and-c. directin& the Depart0ent ofForei&n 3ffairs to honor petitioner?s 0arria&eto her husband Masato0i 7. 3ndo and to issue a Philippine Passport to petitioner under the na0e Edelina 3ndo ) Tun&olE.Petitioner pra)s for such other Cust and e@uitable reliefs.1On '$ Nove0ber +,',, in an Order dis0issin& the Petition for "ant of cause and action, as "ell as Curisdiction, the RT! held thus5Records of the case "ould reveal that prior to petitioner?s 0arria&e to Masato0i 7. 3ndo, herein petitioner "as 0arried to 7uichiro 8oba)ashi, a (apanese National, in!andaba, Pa0pan&a, on Septe0ber '6, +,,', and that thou&h a divorce "as obtained and &ranted in (apan, "ith respect to the their -sic. 0arria&e, there is no sho"in& that petitioner herein co0plied "ith the re@uire0ents set forth in 3rt. '1 of the Fa0il) !ode F that is obtainin& a Cudicial reco&nition of the forei&n decree of absolute divorce in our countr).It is therefore evident, under the fore&oin& circu0stances, that herein petitioner does not have an) causeof action andGor is entitled to the reliefs pra)ed for under Rule 61 of the Rules of !ourt. In the sa0e vein, thou&h there is other ade@uate re0ed) available to the petitioner, such re0ed) is ho"ever be)ond the authorit) and Curisdiction of this court to act upon and &rant, as it isonl) the fa0il) court "hich is vested "ith such authorit) and Curisdiction.#On 1 Dece0ber +,',, petitioner filed an : ParteMotion for Reconsideration of the Order dated '$ Nove0ber +,',. In anOrder dated '# Dece0ber +,',, the RT!&ranted the 0otion in this "ise5B4RFOR, considerin& that the alle&ations and reliefs pra)ed for b) the petitioner in her petition and the instant Motion for Reconsideration falls "ithin theCurisdiction of the Special Fa0il) !ourt of this Curisdiction and for the interest ofsubstantial Custice, the Order of the !ourt dated Nove0ber '$, +,', is hereb) reconsidered.Het the record of this case be therefore referred bac% to the Office of the !ler% of !ourt for proper endorse0ent to the Fa0il) !ourt of this Curisdiction for appropriateaction andGor disposition.$ Thereafter, the case "as raffled to /ranch #$ of the RT!. On '# (anuar) +,'', the trial court dis0issed the Petition ane" on the &round that petitioner had no cause of action. The Order reads thus5The petition specificall) ad0its that the 0arria&e she see%s to be declared as valid is alread) her second 0arria&e, a bi&a0ous 0arria&e under 3rticle 1$-#. of the Fa0il) !odeconsiderin& that the first one, thou&h alle&edl) ter0inated b) virtue ofthe divorce obtained b) 8oba)ashi, "as never reco&ni9ed b) a Philippine court, hence, petitioner is considered as still 0arried to 8oba)ashi. 3ccordin&l), the second 0arria&e "ith 3ndo cannot be honored and considered asvalid at this ti0e.Petitioner?s alle&ation of Sec. + -a. of 3.M. No. ,+