As I wrote before, a Filipino spouse who obtains a divorce from a foreigner abroad must have said the divorce is recognized in the Philippines to capacitate the Filipino to remarry.
To do this, said spouse must file a petition for recognition of judgment with our courts in the Philippines. Only once the imprimatur is given by our courts, can the divorce abroad be recognized and the spouse is allowed to get married to someone else. Necessarily, as a consequence of the recognition, the entries, specifically marital status, and family name, for the Filipina divorced spouses, in the records of our civil registries, must be corrected. For the Filipina spouse, she reverts to her maiden name. This is done via a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
“In Re: Petition for recognition of divorce with prayer for change of civil status of Janevic Orteza Ordaneza from married to single, Janevic Orteza Ordaneza, represented by Ricky O. Ordaneza vs Republic of the Philippines (G.R. 254484 promulgated on 24 November 2021), petitioner wife filed a single action with the court for the recognition of her divorce and the consequent correction of her entries. This action she filed in Kidapawan where she was a resident. The trial court granted her petition and ordered the correction of her entries.
“This was challenged by the State, through the Office of the Solicitor General. Said office contended that the petition should have been filed where the affected civil registry, meaning where the correction would be done, was located, which was in Pasay City; and not her residence in Kidapawan. This is so because this is what is required in a petition for correction entry. Petitioner, however, stood pat her ground and argued that the correction of entries was merely incidental; a necessary consequence of the recognition of divorce. Ergo, filing the petition at the place of her residence was sanctioned by the rules.
“On appeal, the Court of Appeals thumbed up the State’s argument. It reversed the trial court and decreed that the action should have been filed in Pasay in accordance with Rule 108, the rule on correction of entries. With such ruling, there is now confusion about what and where to file. Is it a petition for recognition of foreign judgement or a correction of entry? Where must it be filed, at the place of residence of the petitioner or the affected civil registrar?
“Thus the Supreme Court, when confronted with said issue, finally laid it to rest.”
“The import of the recent rulings of the Court is that there is more than one remedy to judicially recognize a foreign divorce decree in the Philippines and availing one remedy does not automatically preclude the institution of another remedy. Here, it is clear from the prayer that Janevic intended to cancel or correct her civil status entry in the civil registry aside from the judicial recognition of the divorce decree. The cancellation or correction of her civil status cannot be done through a petition for recognition under Article 26 (2) without complying with the requirement of Rule 108.”
“An individual seeking the change of his or her civil status must adhere to the requirement governing a petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108. There are underlying objectives and interests that the State seeks to protect in imposing the requirements in Rule 108, including inter alia the requirements on the venue (Section 1 of Rule 108) and parties to implead (Section 3 of Rule 108), that the Court cannot simply disregard in favor of expediency.”
“Compliance with these requirements is necessary because inherent in the petition under Rule 108 is a prayer that the trial court order(s) the concerned civil registrar make the necessary correction or cancellation in entries of documents in custody. Here, the interested parties referred to in Section 3 of Rule 108 include inter alia the Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City and Masayoshi. The RTC of Kidapawan City does not possess any authority to instruct the Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City to reflect the change in the civil status of Janevic considering that it was not impleaded in her petition.”
“While the change in Janevic’s civil status is an expected consequence of the judicial recognition of her foreign divorce, it does not automatically follow that the Petition she filed is the petition contemplated under Rule 108.”
“Since Rule 108 pertains to a special proceeding, its particular provisions on the venue and the parties to implead must be observed to vest the Court with jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court cannot take cognizance of Janevic’s prayer for cancellation or correction of her civil status from “married” to ‘single’ as this may only be pursued and granted in the proper petition filed in compliance with the specific requirements of Rule 108.”
The facts and quoted provisions are from the case cited above.